Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because. . . (2)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 9876-9900 of 10000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 19:35:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012 19:57:35 GMT
Bertie wrote - "My hyperbole (2 brain cells) was quite modest don't you think?"

The rest of your post wasn't! Once again you take a quote out of context to support your own perverse view. According to the Bible you claim to follow you have already lost out on the Kingdom of God.

Your insulting response to anyone who challenges the Watchtower version of reality can be vile. Is that how you speak to people on the doorstep? Someone asks a question or expresses an opinion that has not been vetted by your superiors and you'll call them a "plonker" or "mummys boy" or "riff raff" or "sick old pervert"?

What I do find genuinely confusing is, you state that the mission of the JWs is to bring people to Jesus. Yet you are so quick to judge who is suitable for "salvation" and who is not. You seem to want to keep your little club exclusive than spread the "good news" and be inclusive.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 19:51:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012 19:55:48 GMT
Bertie wrote - Re: Kingdom Hall - "they'll be very hospitable, very welcoming and polite! Nothing like me"

That is what I was wondering. Any group made up of people as rude as you can, at times, be is unlikely to flourish for very long.

You continued "count the number of Rolls Royces .. Ferraris .. they belong to the elders"
So, the richer the member the faster they rise through the ranks of JWism? Sort of like Scientology?

And added "You can dress fairly smartly "
Thank you, I generally do.

>>> "although at some of my meetings I turned up on a motorbike .. wearing jeans"
I thought, from reading through your posts carefully, that one of the central teachings was to keep the "riff raff" out? That was one of the things that most attracted me. I don't want to have to sit with smelly hippies in their ridiculous "Jesus sandals"

>>>"attitude is something I have to work on."
I had tried to point that out to you before. You attitude can, at times, stink as much as the billion corpses floating in the sea around Noah (hope he had his immunisation?)

>>>"Also temptation towards immorality and dishonesty are always present in this corrupt system of things"
Ahh, I see. JWs are "immoral", "dishonest" and "corrupt"? That would explain the number of Rolls Royce .. Ferraris etc parked closest to the Kingdom Hall. The old 10%ers trick I guess.

>>>"If you do get to a meeting .. well done"
I'll be sure to take copies of your posts with me.

See how a message changes when you quote people out of context?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 21:41:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012 22:21:38 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 21:44:53 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 21:52:09 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 22:19:10 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Mar 2012 22:21:54 GMT
M. Coleman says:
make up your minds , everyone , for Gods sake . :)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 22:24:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012 22:58:24 GMT
Bert Einstein re: Mitochondrion

Mitochondrion (plural = mitochondria) is especially useful for people studying the process of evolution because all of the mitochondrial DNA is inherited as a single unit, rather than the mix that occurs in the host cell. The fact that it has its own DNA is strong evidence (although still a theory, unlike evolution which is now established) that its ancestor was once an independent entity. It is the reason that we know that the human population can be split into two major groups. Those who are descended from the relatively small group that first left Africa and those in Sub Saharan Africa whose ancestors never left.

The theory I mentioned, endosymbiotic theory, originally dates back to the early 1900s, but was advanced more recently by Lynn Margulis in a landmark paper entitled "The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells" (1967) and more recently still in her book "Symbiosis in Cell Evolution" (1980). Although the mechanism she describes has not won overall support, the idea behind it has been advanced by others in the years since her original paper was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

I would love to have been able to take credit for something that is proving so useful in the study of evolution but as you see, I'm not making it up.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 22:52:54 GMT
Bert Einstein asked - RE: Evolution "Are you stating a fact? Something that has been established - tested - provable science?"

Yes. Established and proved in the lab, repeatable fact.

The emergence of distinct species from human ancestors is currently unlikely because there are no totally isolated communities left on Earth. IF (note the use of capitals to emphasis the word IF) there was still a group of humans that were kept completely separate from inter-breeding with the rest of the population for several tens of thousands of years, you would see a species evolve that would be better suited to the environment that population lived in. Over such a short period of time, from the perspective of evolution, the changes would be relatively small and the two species would probably still be able to interbreed in the same way as a horse and zebra can produce offspring.

Since our species left Africa, only a couple of tens of thousand years ago, we have seen the start of the process. Black skin in Africa is beneficial and so there is a selective pressure in its favour. Once humans moved to more Northern latitudes, black skin started to become a disadvantage in the lower intensity of sun light. Vitamin D can be synthesized by the body (Vitamin D3) by a photochemical process which is less efficient in people with black skin. As vitamin D is needed to help form and maintain strong bones, a lack of this vitamin is a disadvantage.

Individuals, outside the tropical zone, who happened to be born with a lighter skin had the advantage of a stronger skeleton (due to the increase in Vitamin D compared to the original darker skinned population) and were therefore more likely to live long enough to have several children. Individuals who happened to be born with darker skin would be more prone to a weak skeleton and therefore less likely to live long enough to have several children. This differential led to more lighter skinned individuals in the population. Fast forward 30,000 years and you have distinctly black and white skinned populations. If those groups had remained separate and you fast forward another 30,000 to 50,000 years (give a take) you would find that separate populations had diverged enough to be classed as different species.

Evolution has no element of design so it is impossible to predict what will change over time. It is a process where some individuals are better adapted to their environment and are able to have more descendants. Which ever changes allow more offspring to survive long enough to have more offspring themselves will drive evolution in that direction.

Hope that helped?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 22:55:33 GMT
Bert wrote - "as long as you leave the Hall ... Awake, you should be o.k."

Will it really be that difficult to resist nodding off to sleep there???

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:03:12 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:04:51 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Mar 2012 23:07:42 GMT
Bert Einstein -

Out of interest - do you consider a virus to be something alive or dead?

Cheers
Mark

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:12:13 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:25:01 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Biologists would be quite comfortable saying evolution is established just as a physicist would be happy to say the theory of gravity was established or a chemist would say germ theory was a fact.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:36:35 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:38:01 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012 23:52:53 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 00:06:03 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 00:13:07 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 00:54:05 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:00:48 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:08:50 GMT
I am not bitter. I just think the people who commited suicide because of their forced isolation due to the JW's 'shunning policy' should have a voice.
Also the orphaned children and relatives and friends of the dead victims of your 'blood' policy. (indirect blood sacrifices to your god 'the watchtower multi-million society) - good name for a business I suppose.

I am the voice for all the innocent victims that you have no empathy or conscience about as you continue reciting your religious jargon like 'disfellowshiped'.

You say 'the correct decision was made'. Setting yourself up as judge and jury and ready to condemn. So full of your own self-importance and without pity for those who are and have suffered.

Shame on you!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:12:38 GMT
You say 'Money donation is optional'.

Ha ha! You forget that I've been in the 'Kingdom Hall' when they were told the money figures for that month and that they had to give more next time (optional of course) and all the psycholgical pressure that went with it.

Give me a break!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2012 01:19:53 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
Discussion locked

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  11 Sep 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions