"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.
is it a dark square or a light square?
Planet earth is not flat. End...of...story.
The following image isn't from the perspective of a human. It is a photograph. Light rays bounced off an object (the Earth) and entered a lens to produce this photograph.
This has nothing to do with a "human perspective." It is a physical reality.
Any conversation to the contrary is "bollocks," to quote my distinguished JWN colleague Cofty.
when installing, it asks if you'd like to receive automatic updates via the internet.. in other words, "we will re-write our history without you knowing what was written previously.".
the corporation knows that many will never exchange their cd rom for the puerile online library, so doctoring their previous "truths" is the best solution.. a bit like the creed painted on the barn door in "animal farm.
" .
They have changed the online version of the Insight book. This isn't a baseless paranoia, Landy.
a new letter was posted in jw.org to the elders who are under the brazilian branch:.
january 25, 2016to all bodies of eldersref .
: clap when given a readmission addear brothers:we would like to inform you about a recent adjustment.
Not long ago it was dictated in a study article it was inappropriate for couples to hug, hold hands and otherwise to grab-ass during song and prayer.
Really? That's insane. Do you have a reference for this?
im new here, so go easy with me!
just wanted to know if any one has any idea's or personal experience in regard to drug and alcohol abuse in former jw's.
all the one's i know have just lost the plot when it comes drugs and alcohol, especially drug use.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
I just had an epiphany.
The Nephilim in the bible are actually reptilians!
Dinosaurs (sons of the true God) mated with women, and those women gave birth to reptilians!
Where's my proof? I don't need any proof. My post is inspired by Holy Spirit. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
i've seen it mentioned by a few on the forum that at some point there was a realization that had they not been born a jw, they never would've converted no matter how many times the jws tried to study with them.
this was my experience too, and i'm wondering how universal it is for those that were born-in but eventually left.
i think i started having this thought (more specifically that if i were not born a jw, i would surely have become an atheist by now) in my late teens.
For me, I think it depends on whether or not I was born into a religious household. Like if I were born Baptist and really believed, I might listen to the JW's when the came knocking and perhaps would have converted.
"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.
is it a dark square or a light square?
If by "flat" you mean level and by "earth" you mean the ground, then yes, the "earth" can be "flat."
All you need is a level, a shovel and some time and patience, and that little patch of earth can be flat.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Over the past 10 years, I have gathered tremendous evidence and victories that prove this to be a true statement.
Anecdotal or empirical evidence? There is a difference.
For instance, if Science went by anecdotal evidence, our drug stores would be filled with snake oil.
Religion == Snake Oil.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
So, nothing can travel past the speed of light, they say.
What about a wheel? the center of the wheel travels at a certain speed, but the outside of the wheel goes faster than the center.
The larger the diameter of the wheel, the faster the outside goes.
so, one would only have to create a big enough wheel, and accelerate the hub to a certain speed...whereas the outside would be going even faster.
I suppose physics would prevent you from accelerating the hub to the speed required to get the outside going FTL.
Nevermind.
I had 3 Red Bulls this morning. Don't mind me.
Although, if I have one more Red Bull, I'll be moving faster than light.
If wheels turn at the speed of light, why are there still wheels?
**drops mic**
nope sorry i got nothing.. wouldn't it be really interesting though if somewhere there was a theist who could challenge unbelievers with facts and evidence?.
