Flat_Accent

Joined

• started 26 topics
• posted 440 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Flat_Accent

• 
  22

  What are you doing on the computer?

  by Flat_Accent in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent
• 
  22

  What are you doing on the computer?

  by Flat_Accent in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Seriously guys, it's like 20 degrees outside

  
• 
  21

  Is the Watchtower blood guilty?. See what some elders have to say.

  by blond-moment in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this jc is worth listening to, in my opinion he has the elders against the ropes most of discussion.. if you are only going to listen to one, this one is the money shot, this is the one i wish those curious about jw could hear.

  .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhixl-riwzq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Oh yes, I couldn't believe the way they just brushed over a serious question like that. But what's worse is that to them, it's completely logical. And if we'd been asked the same question when we were in the borg, we'd have given a similar answer. Makes ya think. . .
• 
  32

  confession time

  by lostinthought in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here are the "sins" i committed this weekend:.

  - i hung out with my catholic friend and flirted with him while together.

  - brought a lotto ticket on a dare.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  I missed field service this weekend, though I did have a very sore throat so does that still count?

  Anyway, they've been out for 8 hours this weekend getting blisters, while I've been sat outside worshipping the sun like a flithy pagan.
• 
  21

  Is the Watchtower blood guilty?. See what some elders have to say.

  by blond-moment in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this jc is worth listening to, in my opinion he has the elders against the ropes most of discussion.. if you are only going to listen to one, this one is the money shot, this is the one i wish those curious about jw could hear.

  .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhixl-riwzq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Anondude2 is the man for uploading this. The best bit for me was in a different part where he reads aloud the WT claims about the 'harvest being completed in our 20th century', then reads the scripture in Deuteronomy about false prophets. I also like Jwfairytale's videos where he's gone through the last stages of his time as a Witness.
• 
  132

  The Bible and Genetics

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i recently read in discover magazine that scientists have found a way to turn on and off memory cells in our brain.

  they say that this is good news for people with post traumatic stress disorder, which i was diagnosed with a few years ago.

  this, to me, brings up the ethical question of what did the traumatic events in my life, and the lives of others, add to society as a whole?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Joining the wolf pack eh? I would have given you nothing but a cordial discussion. As you can see it takes pervasive stalking and put downs to enrage me, but you are free to look like a groupie even though we both know you are not in the slighest.

  haha, well let's just say I knew where it was going - and it was nowhere productive. You are stuck to your ideas, and that's fine. We both have strong opinions, and like I said to you in the last comment, there was no point to continue because it would just become a shouting/insult match. And that's exactly what has happened.

  Your departure was short-lived then?
• 
  132

  The Bible and Genetics

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i recently read in discover magazine that scientists have found a way to turn on and off memory cells in our brain.

  they say that this is good news for people with post traumatic stress disorder, which i was diagnosed with a few years ago.

  this, to me, brings up the ethical question of what did the traumatic events in my life, and the lives of others, add to society as a whole?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Why do you think I stopped posting at page 2? Jeez.

  See ya, Sab.
• 
  778

  IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

  by still thinking in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is an honest question on my part.

  someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.

  in fact, it was a turning point for me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Looks like this thread's gone to S#!%, not that I'm surprised.

  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Nancy.

  If I tell you everyone is asleep/a figment of my imagination, then I have to supply the proof of that. It's not up to anyone else to supply proof it isn't true. If you can't give proof, then I call BS and we leave it at that. But that's the whole burden of proof argument rehashed again just to remind everyone.
• 
  778

  IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

  by still thinking in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is an honest question on my part.

  someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.

  in fact, it was a turning point for me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  For something as big as the existence of God, really nobody definitively 'knows'. Nobody should be pompous enough to say they can know for certain whether God does or doesn't exist. Even Richard Dawkins says he's a 6.9/7 on his Theist/Atheist scale.

  Belief in God relies on faith, which is suspension of the evidence. One dictionary defines faith as 'based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.' Most christians rely on personal experience, anecdotal stories, or spiritual revelation as 'evidence' that God exists. However, on a scientific level, the idea of a God cannot be tested. This is a section from a very good article called 'Weighed and Found Wanting'. You can probably find the .pdf on here, but anyway:

  Clearly, different evaluative criteria are required to determine the merit of a theory. Four features must be assessed: explanatory scope, simplicity, plausibility and testability. . . In light of these criteria, supernatural explanations are ruled out of scientic investigation. This is not a prejudice against supernatural causes, but an inherent limitation of science. Why? Because supernatural causation, or claiming 'God did it' as a scientific conclusion, fails by nearly every measure of what constitutes a good theory.
  It is reasonable to propose that God has maximal explanatory scope, but the nature of the explanation is vague. When God causes an animal to exist, is it the same process as when he creates an angel, or a planet? How does this process work? While it is easy to answer any mystery by invoking an omnipotent power, and thereby yield a huge explanatory scope, upon scrutiny these explanations quickly fracture into many ill defined sub-explanations.

  Simultaneously, these smaller explanations reduce the simplicity of supernatural causation. Additionally, even if a minimal Creator is the only thing being proposed, this is not the type of God the majority of people believe in. Most religions incorporate an active God who intervenes in history, reacts to human actions, and makes proclamations about morality and the afterlife. All of these extra details lead to a very complex theory.

  What about plausibility? Supernatural beings are, by definition, not natural and do not obey natural laws. Hence, all current natural knowledge is useless for evaluating the actions of a nonnatural actor. Because the supernatural is not constrained by the natural, it is impossible to determine plausibility. Does God creating life fit in with what supernatural beings are known to do? No one can say, because there is no background knowledge about the supernatural.

  The final, and most important element of science is testability. Scientic claims must be testable, but God is not testable. Individual claims about a god may be tested, but it is always possible to invent a special case that sidesteps the evidence. For example, studies have shown that intercessory prayer does not help hospitalized people heal faster. [19] However, believers can simply assert that God does not heal people when they are part of a scientific study, thereby avoiding all objective empirical methods. Similar arguments can be used to avoid any piece of evidence. One can also continually move the divine back one step to maintain supernatural causation. Perhaps someone believes that Zeus causes lightning. A scientist could explain that lightning is actually static electricity resulting from the friction of particles of precipitation in a cloud. The believer can simply incorporate this information by claiming that static electricity is important, but that Zeus is the real "cause" of the lightning. It is impossible to scientifically validate or invalidate this theory because it is beyond the methods of science.

  At the Deist level, Gods attributes are unknown. However, the supposed qualities of the Theistic God, given to us through 'inspired' books like The Bible and Koran, CAN be tested. It's in this area that the God idea falls flat, at least in my opinion.
• 
  53

  Maybe

  by 00DAD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for the agnostics amongst us!

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Damnit, I didn't even count right. Just forget that last one.