i remember a wt with the word "happifying".
now that's really stupid!!
!.
there is a new song with something about molested bees.
Yeah, I brought that up a while back. I could never sing that with a straight face. But if you expand the inquiry to a phrase instead of a single word, I think "independent thinking" has to take the prize. Where else but a mind control cult is independent thinking something to be avoided, rather than aspired to?
hi everyone, im new.
i've been feeling a burden on myself for the years that i have been out and i just don't know how to ease it.
i can't talk about the organization or the people in it to anyone... if i try i immediately feel sick and want to close up and just disappear.
When I left, therapy helped me a great deal. I think with your anxiety issues and your feeling ashamed, it would probably help you as well. Please consider it, and welcome to the board. There are great people here, and we can all relate in some way to your experience. I wish you well.
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Wow, mkr and funnyderek, great posts both of you.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” - David Hume
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
every logical attack has met with a corresponding defence.
I'm glad I'm not the one charged with coming up with a defense against logic!
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Beginnings and Endings only have meaning within the context of Time. Remove Time and there are no Beginnings and no Endings. Time began with the Universe. Of course, it's difficult for us to imagine Timelessness (aka Eternity), but it's just as difficult for us to imagine a Universe with more than three physical dimensions.
Yes, they only have meaning within the context of time. This argument of god being outside of time is no different than the argument that he has always existed. It still has no evidence to back it up, so requires none to refute, so here's once again my refutation that your god is outside of time, and I will give the exact same amount of evidence you have given: No he isn't.
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
And the argument is deceptive, unless you think that it is valid to equate improbability of to Gods existence with the the improbability of God having come about by chance (something virtually no one even believes).
Of course it's valid. If god exists then he must have "come about" somehow. As I have already stated, the idea of his having always existed is an argument with no evidence. If he did indeed "come about", then he was either created by another god, which is not an idea many believers seem to support, or he came about by chance. There is nothing deceptive about that equation. However, since you seem hung up on the fact that he didn't argue the point against the "god has always existed" idea, I'll do it for him, as per my first post: "No he hasn't". There. Done.
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance.
This is what I was referring to. This is a Creationist argument, and one that has some merit. The flaw of course, is what he ponts out: that if human life coming about without an intelligent designer is hard to believe, then how much more so the infinitely complex god?
Of course the response to this, as you have stated and as no doubt most creationists would agree, is that god has always existed. However there is no evidence of this, no mechanism suggested through which this is possible, no hypothesis put forward to test the validity of the claim. If this is the nature of god, he has not chosen to make anythng else with this nature, as everything we have ever observed has had a beginning and has had or will have an end. There is no way to argue against an invisible god that has always existed, just as there is no way to argue against a great many things that most likely don't exist (invisible unicorns, etc.).
i've asked afew witnesses at work and around town about no more bookstudy.........they are all so relieved!
one elder with four kids said..."it will make things alot easier, with rushing home from work, the society understands our needs.
"......another brother said: "it's great, now we can go to the cinema on half price tuesday's!
It's funny. The day before this announcement no witness would have been able to openly express this viewpoint (that not going to the bookstudy is a relief, that going is a buden). The day after the same comment displays appreciation for the Governing Body's provision. Makes you wonder what other pent up feelings are common amongst the Witnesses but they are afraid to express. *cough. field service. cough*
i was watching some program on the inquisition.
you know that thing christianity would love for you to forget happened.. when the court system of rome failed the christian courts took over they instituted trial by ordeal.. simply put any accused of a crime would be tortured tested to see if they were innocent by many forms of painful test to see if god would come to the accused's defence.
if they were innocent then no harm would happen to them because of their faith, of course pretty much 100% of the time they were hurt an were summarily executed punished with all the love of jesus in mind.. atheist should due the same accuse all of christians of crimes and force them into trial by ordeal to prove their innocence and backed by god.
I'm pretty sure 5go was joking. Dear god I hope he was! Besides, torturing Christians doesn't work. They like it! It validates their entire worldview. What Christians should really be sentenced to is a class on critical thinking. Then let them try and defend their beliefs with logic. That would change more minds than torture ever would.
i watched "children of men" a couple of nights ago.
it was pretty interesting, but i have to say i didn't get it completely.
maybe because i missed the beginning.
Cinematically, Children of Men is an amazing piece of work. Watch the scene where Clive Owen carries the baby through the battlefield. That gos on for what seems like 10 minutes, single camera, massive special effects, and no edits. It is absolutely amazing.
As for the story, it seems to be about the value of human life, and believing in something worth sacrificing yourself for. I really liked it.
