"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
StrongHaiku, well said.
Hell, it's all beliefs. The only thing that any of us can really know is that we exist. After that, it's all guesswork. We could be completely wrong about many, most, maybe even all of what we believe about our own existence.
I'm just sayin' is all.
it looks to me like the society is rapidly moving back to the february 2008 watchtower "new light" on "this generation," which said this:.
* jesus used "this generation" to mean "anointed ones.".
* in the first fulfillment, jesus was promising that some anointed ones would still be alive to witness the events of 70 c.e.. * in the secondary fulfillment, jesus was promising that some anointed ones would still be alive when jesus returns to judge the sheep and goats.. the new 2015 jw research guide posted on jw.org lists this 2008 watchtower article as the first article people should read about the "clarified understanding" of the generation.. this 2008 view also matches the statement in the new 2015 jesus--the way, the truth, the life book, which says that "this generation" refers to disciples who see the signs of the last days.. i think they are abandoning the overlapping part..
Hey guys, quit trying to make sense outta' nonsense!
It'll never work.
thought this had to be made.
Londo and WTF, thanks for the clarification!
Do you have a page number?
thought this had to be made.
WTF, when and where did Stephen Hassan make the statement you quoted?
Combating Cult Mind Control was published in 1988 and--as far as I can remember--Hassan did not mention JWs explicitly in that book.
so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.
my response: it shows a clash of expectations.
i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.
Simon: That was probably around the Iraq war time when Tony Blair was manipulating public opinion
That's a good point. In fact, when I was in London last, there was an IRA bombing a few blocks from where I was staying in Soho.
so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.
my response: it shows a clash of expectations.
i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.
Obviously, the situation in England is different than here in the US, but tenyearsafter raised an interesting point.
I haven't been to Britain in over 10 years, but last time I was in London roughly half of the street cops were carrying sidearms.
Can someone that lives there or that has been there recently give us an update?
so yesterday was a lovely day where i live and so instead of going to the meeting we went, as a family, out for the late pm/early evening to have a bbq.
we were far more relaxed than if we had gone to the meeting.
we spent far more time talking that if we had gone to the meeting.
Sounds like fun!
If anyone queries your meeting attendance, try this:
this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .
.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.
the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.
Here's another perspective to ponder:
It's been pointed out that there is a difference between ridiculing A PERSON and ridiculing THEIR IDEAS/BELIEFS.
What I haven't seen commented on here is the fact that some IDEAS and BELIEFS are inherently ridiculous. When another person points out this simple, plain unvarnished truth are they really guilty of doing anything wrong? Of course not!
this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .
.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.
the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.
HMTM: Ridicule is what Anthony Morris uses as a weapon to disarm those he opposes.
As I quoted before, “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.” ― Edmund Burke
this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .
.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.
the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.
Marvin: A horse should never see itself as an ass because a horse is not an ass and an ass is not a horse. But, me thinks readers get what you're trying to say!
You are of course correct, taxonomically speaking. They are however both of the genus Equus.
I was trying to be clever, referring to the other common meaning of the word: a stupid, obstinate, or perverse person.
But I think you knew this.
