i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Morpheus: while I appreciate the teacher in you attempting to correct my spelling, thats a war long over and lost. If auto correct dosent catch an error im not going to either
Got it!
One of my best friends and fellow teachers has a coffee cup on his desk that reads, "I'm silently correcting your grammar."
I've not yet learned the subtle art of silent correcting.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
FMF: Or does it just mean they have replaced ignorance with knowledge.
The answer to your rhetorical question is of course obvious. And yet knowledge is always provisional and contingent upon further data.
I like the way you expounded on the Carl Sagan quotes I posted.
Morpheus: Which is where the label "athiest" [sic] gets dicey.
Exactly my point. BTW, it's "atheist," not "athiest."
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Yet concerning the "gods" that have been worshipped throughout humanity's history, this statement by Stephen Roberts best sums up my position on the subject:
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Carl Sagan had this to say about that:
-
i've updated my jw wife on the highlights of the rc proceedings each day as they occur.
but tonight she said something that made my blood boil (which i am usually in complete control of).
she said something to the effect that victims need to not dwell on what happened and let it control their lives.
Great thoughts in the OP. However, you should know that there are not 1006 victims of sexual abuse by JWs in Australia, there are/were 1006 abusers identified by the WTBTS.
Many, perhaps even most, sexual predators abuse multiple victims. Also, there are no doubt many cases of abuse that were never documented by or reported to the elders.
These are important distinctions if one is to really grasp the magnitude of this problem.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2015/08/01/royal-commission-examines-jehovah-witnesses-cover/14383512002194 .
royal commission examines jehovah witnesses cover-up.
newsaug 1, 2015. martin mckenzie-murray the jehovahs witnesses fiercely literal reading of the bible has distanced them from the law and politics, but the royal commission into child sexual abuse is ending that..
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
Orphan Crow, I get your point, but that's not how it works in adversarial legal systems. "Experts" are hired by both sides to prove their side and only their side.
You're confusing theoretical science with the legal system.
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
S&R: I am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
Why should you be shocked that someone did what they were hired to do and nothing more?
She is an "expert witness," not a researcher.
i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
Mad Sweeney: I'm starting to think this might be a cult.
I'm starting to think you might be right!
to all bodies of elders.
re: spiral binding of shepherding textbook.
dear brothers :.
