ADCMS,
Ditto to all 10. It is how I try to live. Thanks for sharing.
according to a number of studies though, religion is in trouble.
a survey by the pew research center in 2012 saw record numbers indicating a huge upswing in atheism, with 20 percent of americans now identifying as agnostic, atheist or "unaffiliated" with a religion.
this was the highest percentages ever of "nones" or those who are unaffiliated in pew research center polling.. so with more people considering themselves atheist, what do they believe when it comes to the rules to live by?
ADCMS,
Ditto to all 10. It is how I try to live. Thanks for sharing.
if you read jw literature, the world has been progressively getting "worse and worse" since 1914.. is that really the case?.
for a more rational analysis, look here:.
a few highlights:.
Dumbass,
Parting is such sweet sorrow. But you and I had a good run, didn’t we. I will remember the good times. Like when you made me feel intellectually superior. You were always there for me. Or when I needed emotional relief and no other word would quite do. You never failed me.
I tried chimp, but it was too cute and just didn't have the needed edge. Neanderthal failed me; the intelligence level of the posters is such that no one ‘got it’.
But dumbass, you never failed me. You were like my best friend. An old, warm, somewhat frayed but treasured sweater on a cold winter’s night.
LisaRose kindly tried to warn me. I listened to her for a while, but you were my siren’s song, and I was unshackled to the mast. You were there for the taking, always happy to see me, like a crazed, dopey golden retriever.
I will never forget how hard I worked to gain exclusive rights to you for this site. That is, except for AndDontCallMeShirley. He and I spent months working on a terms of use agreement that allowed him to use you. It cost me a first round draft pick and some serious cash, but Shirley did you proud.
But Simon has (finally) spoken.
Au revoir my friend.
if you read jw literature, the world has been progressively getting "worse and worse" since 1914.. is that really the case?.
for a more rational analysis, look here:.
a few highlights:.
Apognophos,
I'm not. A lot of those obviously died when very young. Either way, those were real humans and they factor into the numbers. It is the same now; those who live to 40, 50, etc. have beaten the curve and gotten past childhood diseases, etc. I think we all know that. I listed average life expectancies. You are correct with your adjustment on those who are still alive and who make it to a certain age level. Thank you for the clarification.
if you read jw literature, the world has been progressively getting "worse and worse" since 1914.. is that really the case?.
for a more rational analysis, look here:.
a few highlights:.
How about this 'temporal statistic' dumbass: Do you know what they called the typical 35 year old human for 100,000 years??? Dead. Deceased. Do you know what they called the typical 35 year old human, including the average 35 year old American, in the year 1900???
Dead. Deceased.
Chorination/disinfection of water and wastewater supplies followed a few decades later by antibioltics were two of the primary reasons life expectancies surged post 1900.
So which time period would you dumbasses want to live in? If you pick anything pre-1900 you are most likely dead right now. Unless you are under the age of 35 and then you might have a few more years left.
The air, soil and water are cleaner now than they were 20, 50 even 75 years ago in most if not all of the industrial countries. There are problems, but cleanup continues unabated. Developing countries have some issues, but China and others are showing strong commitments to ending pollution.
In most industrial nations there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. And the cyber world is an infant; we shall see greater improvements to the environment in the future. There is a ton of data which states the same thing.
if you read jw literature, the world has been progressively getting "worse and worse" since 1914.. is that really the case?.
for a more rational analysis, look here:.
a few highlights:.
sir82, spot on. These types of statistics/data have been presented on this site numerous times to show that we are in the best of times. The Dark Lords will spin it either way. And SingleCell, WTF? Are you serious or joking? You make broad, scary assertions absent any actual data. Typical. Sir82 provided real data. At least you are making it clear where the single cell is located. There is so much data to support sir82's assertions. Wanna see a helluva lot more? Or do scary prophecies rock your boat and you don't want to be confused by the facts.
an athist made this casual statememt on another thread:.
this would suggest to me that there are at least some atheists that do have consistant beliefs.. .
as an atheist, how could he possibly trust the reason that suggests this to himself?
Ditto, Dog and Shirley,
Perry is a narcissist who thrives on attention. He chose the title of his OP, I'm certain, to annoy atheists and get the response he craves. I try to avoid Perry; most of the time he is harmless and similar to an annoying gnat that won't go away and get out of your face no matter how many times you swat at it.
The premise of the OP is bullshit, as usual. No matter how many times we atheists explain to Perry or some of the other thesits that our atheism was a very long, methodical, non-emotional rational journey they post such nonsense. It seems Perry spends his spare time looking for the most reasonably sounding confirmationally biased tripe he can find. He has to know it will be nuked and fail to sway anyone, but he persists nonetheless. He gets high marks for tenacity.
Perry and some of the hard core theists simply cannot wrap their brains around the fact that atheists do not need god to behave and do not struggle in our non-beliefs. I struggled to be a theist. Being an atheist has freed me from any struggle. Perry, there is a lot of data that suggests the more rational one's personality the more llikely they are to be atheist. That's 180 degrees opposite from your premise it would seem.
if you are/were an active jw, you are now here on jwn so, for whatever your reasons, you woke up to some degree- hopefully a great degree.
so what i am saying may not apply to you.. i know that if i had not already left, i would have stormed out on the day they studied "overlapping generation.
" i am quite confident i couldn't have stayed for such an obvious switcharoo just to make the end seem imminent and try to explain how wts was wrong, but not entirely wrong in the past.. but i had to wonder how that change (or others) didn't cause most jw's to walk out.
OTWO,
Nice OP. I especially like your A - G process. We see that so many times when Dubs, in response to the way-effed up Borganization's directions (lack of) and changing doctrines, say things like "where else are we to go?" We see the same thing on this site frequently. They are locked in the successive chain of thinking, and they will never be free until they discard the entire process and start over.
after some considerable thought i have decided that i will no longer post on this forum because i want to return to jehovah.
thank you for all the kindness and many interesting discussions over the years.
i wish you all well in the future and the decisions you make.
R.E.M. (ode to Andy Kaufman/aka slimboyfat)
Now, Andy did you hear about this one?
Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby
Are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon
Man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up his sleeve
Then nothing is cool
i listen to one of these all time in our hall.
she brings it up constantly about how they would do this or that but he has to work that saturday.
i think she should get a job and then he could find a lower paying 9 to 5 job..
ADCMS,
Yeah, I know Tal's history. I've never locked horns with her, but she is so wrong on this one it will be like clubbing baby seals. The wealth of data which completely refutes her rant is overwhelming. In the grown-up world in which I live, she has those 4 options. Actually 3, since she will never be able to support her rants. Admit, apologize, remain silent. Anything else is a shrill whiney rant.
i listen to one of these all time in our hall.
she brings it up constantly about how they would do this or that but he has to work that saturday.
i think she should get a job and then he could find a lower paying 9 to 5 job..
talesin,
What I stated is true; you may not like it, but it is true. Is it as commonplace as it once was? I doubt it, but others are weighing in saying the same thing I'm saying. My personal experience is the same as others. Men sometimes ride on women's earnings; society is NOT kind to such men. Women can do it with impunity. Agree or not doesn't change the facts. It's the same thing in the dating world; women rarely if ever pick up the tab or even offer. A little bit of research rather than saying cutting and untrue things to me would change your mind. If you wish, I will do the research for you and present it here. That will give you an opportuntiy to apologize, admit you were wrong, remain silent or provide equally compelling data (which you can't do). Those are your only grown up options.