Posts by B_Deserter

20

Christian T.V show....man claims after car accident Jesus talked to him! Are they on drugs or lying?

by Witness 007 in

this guy had a serious accident and had limbs amputed but when interviewed claims very logically that while waiting for help jesus appeared and told him..."jim, everything will be okay, it's not your time...i need you to be a missionary for me..." this guy talks about it like it's nothing!

are these people for real or just lying.....i agree with marx who said "religion is the opium of the people.

".

B_Deserter

So the God he already worships just HAPPENS to be the one who talks to him. How convenient.

Now if Ganesh showed up and told him to become a Hindu, I'd be slightly more impressed.

5

Why Witnesses need Sunday schools....Oral sex Watchtowers!?!?

by Witness 007 in

knorr banned them because the bible says...."families must worship together".....but sitting thru a watchtower study where the topic is "porniea" and little 7 year old johnny puts his hand up and answers: "jehooova...hates oral sex!

" watchtower conductor: "yes, thank you johnny...good comment...".

not apropriate.

B_Deserter

Knorr apparently didn't get the memo that in most churches families do worship together. Sunday school is not worship.

30

Michael Jackson - Teenage Superstar Jehovah's Witness!!?...that's what killed him!

by Witness 007 in

imagine being a teenage superstar....and a jehovah's witness???

poor guy must have suffered a worst mind f#ck then any of us.

teenage girls worshiped him, but i doubt he ever had one.

B_Deserter

Yeah because all witness families have fathers obsessed with their kids' fame to the point of abuse.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

B_Deserter

That doesn't work. From where I stand it's a two headed coin, and you see a coin with two tails. Claiming neutrality is like trying to say that it landed standing on edge.

What I'm asking is how you could have an active belief in either heads or tails. Yes, people GUESS whether it's heads or tails, but it's not based upon anything they know. It's a guess, and they will accept it if it turns out to be the opposite of what they've guessed. What I'm talking about is if you truly, sincerely believe, for example, that the coin has landed heads side up. Based on the lack of evidence, I would reject your claim that it is heads, but not the possibility that it could be. Likewise, I could reject the belief that it landed tails side up due to the same lack of evidence. It all boils down to the fact that "I don't believe X" is not the same as "X cannot be true."

17

DC 2009 NEW SONGBOOK Details.

by Pineapple in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val=" " /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

/* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} [endif].

B_Deserter

Unfamiliar expressions have been replaced and awkward words have been removed.

I am skeptical of this.

19

What is your best example of Witnesses REPHRASING something to change its meaning?

by BonaFide in

jw's redefine words.

they change lives as a result, with people actually thinking they are in control, when they are not.. here are some that really have caused me anxiety, arguments, and just complete frustration.

even when i was a "believer" some of these bothered me.. provision (rule).

B_Deserter

Christian (only Jehovah's Witnesses)

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

B_Deserter

" It's that as an atheist you start with the presupposition that "there is no God""

No, that's not it at all. I simply reject the claim that there is a God. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as saying "X cannot be true." There are two possibile outcomes when it comes to the existence of God, either there is a God or there is not, but that does not mean there are only two possible beliefs regarding that subject. For example, if I were to flip a coin, and then hold it in the palm of my hand, would you believe that the heads side is up? would you believe that the tails side is up? If you answered No to both of those questions, I rest my case.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

B_Deserter

Comparing a lighting bolt striking the ground to the creation of a cell is like throwing paper and a typewriter in a tornado and expecting to get an unabridged dictionary.

For the last fucking time: ABIOGENESIS DOES NOT SAY THAT CELLS JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE BY THEMSELVES, OR BY 'LIGHTNING STRIKING THE GROUND!'

Honestly, I'd encourage you to watch the videos I posted again, but it seems you're too fond of propping up the same age-old straw man arguments to take part is any serious conversation. If you disagreed with specific points of the videos and stated why then we could have a civilized conversation, but you're either willfully remaining ignorant of the subject or deliberately ignoring the information so you can continue to feel intelligent by knocking down the cheap caricatures of my positions you've constructed.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

B_Deserter

Deputy Dog, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree, but you are consistently misrepresenting my position.

You seem to be claiming that I think that abiogenesis is the ultimate explanation for life and proves there is no God. I am not making that claim. You cannot equate abiogenesis to the invisible horse because A) I am not making the claim that abiogenesis is absolutely true, just that it is a possible explanation, which is not what I'm doing when I say I know for a fact there is an invisible horse standing next to me and B) there is at least SOME evidence for it. You seem to be implying that just because the Miller-Urey experiment failed to create a cell, the entire field of study is valueless and it never will reach its goal.

But regardless of whether or not abiogenesis explains the origin of life, the default viewpoint is NOT "a magic man must have done it!" because that is an assertion of something where proof is required. In comparison, saying there is absolutely no God is also an assertion which requires proof. Yes, there are only two possibilities: there is either a God or there is no God, but Atheism (at least my atheism) is the default position because it does not have to make an assertion either way. It CAN make an assertion that there is no God, but I can reject that claim (as I do) citing insufficient evidence and still be an atheist.

111

The Watchtower Didn't Make Me An Atheist

by B_Deserter in

ive posted on this before, but i figured i should lay my thoughts out again on the subject.

there are some in the ex-jw community who are saddened because the watchtower organization has turned me and others like me off to god.

the watchtower attacks and debunks other religions on a regular basis, often giving us the sense that if the watchtower is wrong, then there cant be a god.

B_Deserter

I never said NONE. You just did! You proved nothing. You simply counted the amino acids.

My apologies, your phrasing gave me the wrong impression. Even so, you really need to watch the videos I posted. Abiogenesis does not say that modern cells simply popped into existence by chance.

Both statements are true. You don't know what was in "the primitive Earth's atmosphere" and neither does anyone else. Who's best guess do I have to use? From where I stand it looks to me like you'll need to produce a life form before you can make a better guess.

No, no one knows for sure that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was like, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about it. Evidence from geology for example strongly suggests that the early atmosphere was reducing, containing little to no oxygen. Consider the following:

Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe 2 O 3 ) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago

I think you called it "abiogenesis".

Way to avoid the issue. Seriously, I'm done here. If you don't want to bother to learn what abiogenesis actually is before using the same old creationist canards, then I see no point in trying to educate you on the subject. Besides, this is way off the course of the original purpose of my thread anyway.