.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
If I may also answer:
How does an athiest know when he has done something good? Who's standard does he use?
The same one everyone else uses - the one that's individually developed through human empathy combined with life experience.
Why - what one do you use?
i have been studing it for years looking for answers....yet for every answer i find there is a counter to it.
the words themselves are twisted by leaders/teachers to fit their personal opinions and adgendas, as well as twisted by trying to rely on our own reasoning to understand them.. a good example would be the way our current system of laws work.. if the supreme court writes a law into the book..say for example.."evil" is anyone who does this....... it is then turned over to a bunch of undereducated enforcers to interpert and judge others they feel are "evil".
they are allowed to accuse and shoot first asking questions later.
Within a few days I started praying and speaking in tongues every night for a whole week! And it was all night long.... eight to ten hours each night.
Woah.
Quick, get the net - they're all coming out.
a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.
is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.
so, it is called an absolute date.
Oh yes it will because there is always a reward for those who loyally support God's Word.
Yes exactly, which is not you. You loyally support the WTS. I don't think God will punish you for this, as you do seem sincere in your ignorance. I hope we will take pity on you.
a quote from this site - http://www.2001translation.com/jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm says that 'most historians agree that 539-b.c.e.
is the date of the overthrow of babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this.
so, it is called an absolute date.
You are correct in saying that secular data is essential but the chronologist wisely ensures that any secular data use must not contradict biblical data for biblical data must have primacy over secular data.
scholar the ostrich, head firmly buried in the sand, chanting 'evidence cannot contradict bible, evidence cannot contradict bible'. It might give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it won't save you.
interesting little flashy thingie, toolie on usa today (see how professional i sound?).
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm.
interesting results in new york.... where the world wide headquarters of jws resides... .
Jedi
i have had about 5 digital watches since my nde when i was young.
every single one of them reset itself regularly.
2 of them i gave away because of the problems i had, and their new owners (my father and brother) never had a problem with the watches since..
Another thought comes to me:
The problem here is one of qualification, people have a tendency to re-state 'evidence' according to their own bias.
For instance, on the same website, in describing the referenced page, this phrase is used:About 75% of NDErs mysteriously make watches stop
what it should say is:
Most of 80% (I forget how many) of 27 NDEers I have spoken to believe they stop watches.
The second statement I have no issues with, the first one I do because it makes the assumption that a statement of belief that something has occurred is equal to the event actually occurring. There is overwhelming evidence for humans remembering things that did not occur, or the related problem of spotting patterns that have no basis in reality. For instance, as an extreme example, humans are entirely capable of having having false memories implanted in them. If you combine a leading question with a credulous respondee, you can get a positive response to almost any question.
i have had about 5 digital watches since my nde when i was young.
every single one of them reset itself regularly.
2 of them i gave away because of the problems i had, and their new owners (my father and brother) never had a problem with the watches since..
Thinking out loud:
If I found out that 'most of 80%' of NDEers cause watches to stop, I'd be amazed!
I'd be so excited and motivated, I'd want to do a bigger more scientific study.
Because this isn't a small effect that might be hard to distinguish, this is 'most of 80%'!!!! That's just too easy to prove... too damn easy!
So, I assume this larger scientific study must be happening: Have they finished yet? If so, what are the results? Was the study successfully replicated by an independent group of scientists who found the same result?
i have had about 5 digital watches since my nde when i was young.
every single one of them reset itself regularly.
2 of them i gave away because of the problems i had, and their new owners (my father and brother) never had a problem with the watches since..
So, he says "most" of the 80% of NDEers stop watches... This means that at the very least, 51% of the 80% stop watches. That places us at about 40% at the very least. Again, comparing this to the 4% of non-NDEers, there is a chasm of difference. As for Morse's numbers, I quote: "Morse says 4% of normal adults and 2% of out-of-body experiencers claim they make watches stop". An OBE is not an NDE, and vice versa. Do not equate the two. This statement says nothing about NDEers, only OBEers.
I accept your point about definitions.
Forgetting the Morse survey. From a skeptical POV there's still nothing to it. Nothing at all.
You can't just say most must translate into a figure greater than 50%.
That's something we might expect, but one of the important steps in making a skeptical appraisal is to compensate for the bias caused by expectation.
The percentage is not stated so therefore is unknown (I'm still bugged by the question: why is it unknown? Seems a huge oversight on behalf of the author - did he forget to count them?)
But anyway, as I said earlier: there is nothing here but anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.
Anyone who can stop watches, do what the earlier poster said, go visit James 'The Amazing' Randi and collect your million dollars.
.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
Religious morality allows people to justify some horrible, horrible things, such as:
and
Paul Hill murdering a doctor who legally performed abortions
I can't imagine how an atheist would ever come up with a code of morality that justified these kinds of acts, let alone actively encouraged and promoted them.
.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
I think everyone gets their morality from the same place, genetics and experience, just religionists later on in life pretend it comes from a book.
