Rutherford truly was a scumbag wasn't he? What a worthless sack of shit that vile man was.
This photo fits your description perfectly George...
watchtower emergence of the business end .
today i uploaded a new article to my blog addressing the emergence of watchtower as a business.
though watchtower had always been a business concern, something happened in the late 1920s that forced watchtower to project its business beyond the front office and far into the rank-and-file.
Rutherford truly was a scumbag wasn't he? What a worthless sack of shit that vile man was.
This photo fits your description perfectly George...
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world.
found this new statesman article linked in a sam harris tweet.
it is a collection of comments on reasons for non-belief from such ones as richard dawkins, daniel dennett, sam harris, jerry coyne and stephen hawking...to name a few.. what caught my eye about the tweet was this comment by harris, his actual tweet:.
I don't think anyone said that Hawking believed in God.
Hey Tammy...sounds like you had a great trip driving across the country. That's on my bucket list. As for the above, not sure who that is directed at…but why would it matter if anyone actually stated that or not? I started this discussion, spurred by Sam Harris' tweet, by being unsure what Hawking was trying to convey. Considering he was offering a public statement for non-belief, I found it lacking and brief. So to better understand his view, figured it was relevant to post some of his elaborated comments on the subject of God. At the very least I was simply curious...and hope others were too.
It does seem to make a difference to the atheists who put credence into having Hawking in their corner, though.
Easy…now you're getting Shelby all riled up for a playground scrap. No thanks. Speaking for myself, if Stephen Hawking came out and declared he found Jesus in his pasta sauce, it wouldn't at all affect my non-belief and non-worship of Yahweh, Allah or Oprah. Would I find it intriguing? For sure, and would want to hear what he had to say.
But as far as I'm concerned, in my "corner" it is just me, Mrs. Shack, our dog, and until the thread dies, Miracle Max. Except when he's in the kitchen whipping together an MLT: mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich…where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that.
For those interested, a video of a discussion between Hawking and Richard Dawkins on the origin of life, our future and God. Sorry can't embed it...just the link.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xek6vt_richard-dawkins-visits-stephen-hawking_tech
these grow wild all around the house.
this is a bumper crop year.
a little sugar, pour cream over them...or.
Glander...blackberries right? They grow everywhere here too. The town even has a Blackberry Festival each year - next weekend in fact - where the blackberry margaritas are flowing like the salmon of capistrano.
i enjoyed reading the bible and my favourite was an asv i purchased at an a$$emby.. however, when i wanted to bone up on a passage or verse, i'd look at the insight or watchtowers and found the wtb$ really did ruin my enjoyment when they explained what i was reading.
i think it must have been the self serving spin the wtb$ put on the scriptures!.
anyone else get this and can comment why this happened?.
Can't say I ever really enjoyed reading the Bible. Always felt pressured to do it..."eat your veggies" kind of thing. Though I found Proverbs tolerable...but now realize it sounds like it was written by Dr. Phil.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world.
found this new statesman article linked in a sam harris tweet.
it is a collection of comments on reasons for non-belief from such ones as richard dawkins, daniel dennett, sam harris, jerry coyne and stephen hawking...to name a few.. what caught my eye about the tweet was this comment by harris, his actual tweet:.
Pretty much bohm. But if not clear enough...a few more comments here...plus, a bit on M theory.
Pulled from this article on New Scientist: Hawking hasn't changed his mind about God
Likewise, in 2001 I interviewed Hawking and he made a telling remark underlining how he was not religious. He told me: "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence."
And in a piece by him that I edited in 2008, he described how he attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican, where the pope told the delegates they should not inquire into the beginning of the universe itself, because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.
Hawking joked, "I was glad he didn't realise I had already presented a paper at the conference investigating precisely that issue: I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the inquisition like Galileo."
As Hawking's long-suffering assistant dealt with a deluge of enquiries from journalists from around the world, she told me how the furore says more about the silly season than any change of mind. It also says much about how God is used to sell science to the public. The Higgs boson, labelled the "God particle" – a moniker that Peter Higgs himself finds embarrassing – springs to mind. And after all, The Times is serialising Hawking's book, which he wrote with Leonard Mlodinow.
In it, Hawking describes how M-theory, a candidate ultimate theory of everything, may offer answers to the question of creation. "According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe," Hawking writes. "Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god."
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world.
found this new statesman article linked in a sam harris tweet.
it is a collection of comments on reasons for non-belief from such ones as richard dawkins, daniel dennett, sam harris, jerry coyne and stephen hawking...to name a few.. what caught my eye about the tweet was this comment by harris, his actual tweet:.
Just catching up on the thread now...thanks for all the great comments. As we speculate and dissect the meaning of Hawking's rather compact comment, looking at his expanded thoughts would help reveal where his mind is at. Thanks to OTWO and Bohm for already touching on some of that. So here's a couple more comments from Hawking regarding "God".
In his latest book The Grand Design (which I have yet to read) Hawking states:
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Below is a quote taken from an article in The Telegraph, Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
In June this year Prof. Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" God existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
perhaps, if you are a theist, you might not want to read this.
if you are nevertheless curious about how an atheist thinks, then please read on.. i don't think there are any active members of this board who have been atheists all their lives (are there?).
i think virtually all of us transitioned into non-belief from a religious beginning.
I think skimming and reading short snippets online in general has hindered my ability finish a worthy book
Funny you say that....Mrs. Shack and I were talking about that very thing the other day. Twitter, Facebook, StumbleUpon...and JWN for me...have all started rewiring our brains for those short snippets . Hits of instant gratification. We've noticed our reading has declined in the past year or so....we pin it on the " hors d'oeuvres".
Okay...now back to Nick (who I think had ribs for lunch...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qx_d4tdmz0.
the full video is an hour long.
specific topics are found at the times below.
Well damn...guess I was too late to make the cut. I had sent in a question yesterday regarding his tweet mentioned on this thread. (which I need to go catch up on)
Thanks for posting, Donny.
perhaps, if you are a theist, you might not want to read this.
if you are nevertheless curious about how an atheist thinks, then please read on.. i don't think there are any active members of this board who have been atheists all their lives (are there?).
i think virtually all of us transitioned into non-belief from a religious beginning.
Cheez: I'll eventually buy his book and read the first three chapters before skipping to the last page to see what happens.
Haha...yep, I'm bad for having too many books on the go. Get into a book, stall out for whatever reason, start in on another book...then you have 3 books stalled about 3rd way in.
I've read his The End of Faith...scrutinizes the tolerance of religious fundamentalism, takes Islam to the woodshed. He followed that with a short book A Letter to a Christian Nation...excellent quick read.
perhaps, if you are a theist, you might not want to read this.
if you are nevertheless curious about how an atheist thinks, then please read on.. i don't think there are any active members of this board who have been atheists all their lives (are there?).
i think virtually all of us transitioned into non-belief from a religious beginning.
Ahhh...Adriana Lima. PSac...don't put too much on my hastily thrown together sentence while at work. Having not read the book I'm hardly an authority to speak for what Sam Harris is saying.
If interested, here's Harris speaking at TED on the subject. His ideas usually stir up some controversy, which I like.