Another preachy website from a quack claiming to be a scientist? No thanks. It will be the same as the others, No evidence and nothing but sentence that sound like "well if god doesn't exist, How could [x] have happened?". That isn't proof and it's no reason to believe anything. The fact that the two fastest animals on the planet have a predator/prey relationship is probably the easiest for you to understand. The thompson gazelle and the cheetah spend their days running away from and trying to catch each other. This means the slow thompson gazelle get caught (don't pass on genes) and the slow cheetah don't get food (don't pass on genes). This natural selection which viciously removes undesirable genetics from the gene pools of each species and has produced, Through natural selection, The two fastest animals on the planet. That is absolute rock solid evidence that natural selection is a fact and that it alters the characteristics of a species by natural selection. Now apply this natural selection to single cell life and it should become obvious how we now have many many difference species each suited perfectly to it's environment. You are just arguing semantics now. To be convinced means to believe through evidence or argument. Not simply to believe because that is what you have been told, Which is what you do. There is no reason to believe god done anything besides someone once telling you it (probably when you were an impressionable child) and you believing it.
I'm not even going to bother with reading through the 250+ posts in this thread; there's no need. Religion is definitely a lie, and I can't think of a lie with consequences nearly so dire.
Sorry, I'm still quite new in this area of DP, still getting to learn about the usual posters in this area I don't know much about the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'll take the time to follow your posts a little more closely
Oh, a "Jehovah's Witness", well I'm a "Giant Monkey killing millions of people" witness....you can't disprove me
The fact that one is a registered organization and the other is a foolish line offered by someone on an internet forum makes them quite different
No, actually, yours just has more people. I could make a forum about it and it would be an organization. If I built it up enough it would be exactly the same as yours Thx
I have no affiliation to any foolish organized religions and I detest Christianity - my pointing out your ridiculous line has nothing to do with my beliefs. To be even more clear: starting a "forum about it" has nothing to do with it. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a recognized church and charity operator. They print magazines, present television shows, do missionary work, etc. I may dislike Christianity, but the only thing worse then being Christian is being an atheist and underestimating Christianity. And stupidity is another of my pet peeves.
Haahahahahahaa! You see, you're being irrational, a normal sign of a true believer, always getting angry at those who dare to insult or even hint that there really is no god. Please read "The god delusion" by Richard Dawkins....man, cool off and think clearly then you'll see the truth
I'm glad that I was able to make you laugh; my lack of religion allows me to concentrate my spare time on how I can positively affect the people I interact with throughout my day. Still, the laughter is ill-aimed. I'm simply telling you the truth about your comparison. I will look into the book you referenced though, it sounds very interesting by title alone.
Strangely enough the giant monkey religion is more credible. We know that monkeys exist, and we know they can kill people, All he needs to do if find a giant one and he has his god. Where as, With your religion, there is absolutely no evidence of a giant invisible man in the sky that is everywhere at once.
Well. There is no evidence that you know of. Does not mean there is no evidence at all. Have you ever thought it possible that you might not know there is more evidence available? Col
lmao this is brilliant. Do you know what evidence is? What do you think would happen if a lawyer went to court and told the judge "i can't prove this guy didn't commit the crime, But you don't know if there may be some evidence that you don't know about". This is the level at which the religion operate. I sometimes wish they would say things back to themselves before they say it aloud, They might occasionally realise how little sense they make.
You are only relating "evidence" to physical things you can see. That is why you answer so. However, there is evidence of the things unseen. Evidence does not mean it has to be scientific. Not everything is science my friend. Col