Well, the problem is that you've neither the right nor authority to do that.lolz
If authority is needed when asking people on an online forum to support their claims about reality, where exactly are you getting yours from, pumpkin?
You're funny.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
Well, the problem is that you've neither the right nor authority to do that.lolz
if jws did the following, i believe they would grow exponentially and become one of the largest 'religions' on earth : .
1. no more dfing or shunning......its up to your conscience who you like or don't like.
in the same way if i was catholic living in ireland, i wouldn't hang out with my neighbor if she was a drunk fornicator, just had an abortion, had a taliban boyfriend and also supported liverpool soccer club.
The only way they can survive is to water things down to the point that they almost cease to be a religion. Either way it's a win IMO.Ha.
just skimmed the new october broadcast.
http://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=mp4&output=html&pub=jwb&issue=201510.
check out losch talking about good works and sacred service.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
Thanks. I don't even have a flippin' god belief of my own [I'm an agnostic]. But it just seems like mostly a bunch of either, dishonest or ill informed, communication to me. (I'm not even saying it is, just that it seems so, to me... A scrabble to win a debate that's not even happening and to beat a dead horse that nobody's even trying to ride)
It's boring repeating points that people quite intelligent enough to understand, are pretending have not been made. [Take vivs LOLtastic response above, a perfect example... "U r dum so i iz rite"]
You may enjoy the youtube videos of the guy I posted before. He was raised a jdub by an unbaptised mother, but he's a philosophy something or other, I forget what.Anyways, thanks for the shoutout. I'm done here.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
Asking people to define a god so it can be discussed or debated and then just dismissing any silent or absent god as "irrelevant", "worthless" or "pointless", is empty. (argumentum ad lapidem)
This could be avoided by simply giving a justification for the dismissal
Are you missing the point on purpose?No one is asking you to define god that way, it's simply the best any believer has been able to do. Hardly my fault.
Dismissing someone's god belief as "irrelevant", is no rebuttal. Argumentum ad lapidem.
Dismissing a god as an asshole is also no disproof. Sounds awkwardly like an appeal to emotion (It is after all the only reason offered - and if it is in fact the reason for dismissal - IS an appeal to emotion.).
But as I said, this could be avoided simply by providing a justification of your dismissal, it wouldn't even need to be a good one. After all - it is you asking people to define their god. It is just dishonest to then respond as you are doing.
When Kate Wild said
No you haven't been able to prove to me with evidence that a creator was not responsible for guiding evolution and especially the formation of enantiomers.
You responded
It's been proved, just not to you because you've not bothered to learn enough to understand the evidence. The problem is not lack of proof presented to you, it's lack of effort to understand it on your part.
No. Untrue. You over step yourself.
It has been shown that a god is not in any way necessary.
There is an extreme difference. (Unless you care to detail the "Proof" that some god didn't guide things? Sounds impossible to me, I don't know why you'd claim to have done so.)
Anyway, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time.
Lack a belief... lol.
http://skepticexaminer.com/2015/02/why-the-lack-a-belief-response-is-problematic/
Worth a read, if you are a Lacktheist,.
do any of you ex-jw's still believe in god?
even with the new rebranding/softening of this religion, i still don't see how people can believe in him.
the god of the old testimate is an angry murderer who approved rapes and slavery and killed thousands of men, women and children.
That's the point, stuff. Any god defined ever is either irrelevant or an asshole.Asking people to define a god so it can be discussed or debated and then just dismissing any silent or absent god as "irrelevant", "worthless" or "pointless", is empty. (argumentum ad lapidem)