by Terry 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You can never accuse Terry of not having done his research or of having strong reasoning for his argument. And if he appears offensive I think gently bringing this to his attention is more noble than insulting him as a person.
Still laughing..............
What a fine fellow this Terry must be!!
Listen to Fifi, folks! She is some kind of genius.
And still laughing........
Hey Terry here's a question for you
Is it a scientific fact that you are a bigot, blind to others opinions who is as pompous as any religious poster, or more; or is it a myth?
From the Mutual appreciation company
Oh and would you mind if I posted this question as a new topic?
I have been away for the weekend and the discussion has been vibrant. Terry I have a question for you in the context of the original question, who wins, science or religion? It seems to me that you are of the belief that you can rely upon science to answer all of life's questions and that there is no need and has never been a need for religion. You have to admit that there are alot of questions that science can't answer, for example, there are certain diseases for which there is currently is no cure. When this happens there has to be a benefit to some people for the comfort they receive through their religious beliefs. You may think this is illogical and not rational, but is is a real benefit nontheless. Because when you get down to it, we are not totally logical beings. I think you would agree that our history tells us that mankind does not always act in a logical fashion controlled by reason. We have emotions and feelings. And if religion has offered no other benefit to mankind than to keep the bad emotions and desires somewhat in check, to provide an outlet and comfort for despair and depression and to provide a venue for joy and thanksgiving for the good that comes our way, than it is very valuable. If you have not had that type of religious experience, than that is not an indictment of religion, only what you have experienced. There have been many times throughout history where man has decided that they knew it all and that science had answered the questions only to find out that there was more to learn and despite all of advances of science, both good and bad, religion and a belief in a Supreme being has survived. Why do you think that is? I must answer your argument that science is not responsible for the atomic bomb. America did drop the atomic bomb under the logic that it would save more American lives than an assault on Japan. In otherwords, because of the practical notion of our survival we used our technological advantage to destroy a weaker enemy. Sounds exactly like your definition of the benefit of science.
I see that cake-ass AK did a drive by. Yes, that is an insult, because the part I have in this disscussion is to read this most interesting topic. Back to reading. You can insult me back AK. I wont answer though. To busy reading.
Terry,
One thing that I have noticed on this particular discussion forum, is that if you spend a little time thinking out your arguments or responses and present them as a 'fait accompli' it does not go down well. It is at this stage that you become a dartboard for every frustrated poster who never won a point in debate to aim at, and then the thread gets buried in the drivel of wounded feelings.
My advice is to flounder around posting the very first embryonic thought that enters your head on any subject, familiar or otherwise, put lots of brackets around peoples {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{names}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}, and never, but never describe a moron as a moron.
It would also help if you were to title your threads more carefully. A few ideas : 'Oral Sex & Coffee - Do They mix?', 'Reality Shows Make My Dog Grin', 'What Do You Think Of My Tattooed Arse?' - that sort of thing.
HS
Is it a scientific fact that you are a bigot, blind to others opinions who is as pompous as any religious poster, or more; or is it a myth?
No, but, I wouldn't mind being a cake-ass!
What I FEELabout things is largely because of how I value things. That isn't my spirit; it is my intellect fed by my choices based on my observations and moderated by my personal taste.
errrr ... , no comment ! ...
Also you don't only have technical sciences you also have social sciences (psycho stuff) ...
Voilà.
It seems to me that you are of the belief that you can rely upon science to answer all of life's questions and that there is no need and has never been a need for religion.
Science doesn't really so much answer life's questions as it measures things and allows predictability into choices about process. There is no need for religion because it is an "I want" situation. For example, "I want to live forever and the only way I can is to postulate somebody who can make that happen." Consequently, God is invented.
A mature person (ahem) knows the difference between "I want" and "I need".
Humanity needs information which is clear, transparent and accurate because our decisions become fine-tuned by the level of accuracy in our premises and choices.
You have to admit that there are alot of questions that science can't answer, for example, there are certain diseases for which there is currently is no cure. When this happens there has to be a benefit to some people for the comfort they receive through their religious beliefs.
If we refuse to be realistic about life we force ourselves to cope with unpleasant reality by wishing it away or not paying attention to the consequences and pretending there are none. Religion has the same comfort quotient as lying.
Scenario Number 1:
Doctor: Mr. Jones you are going to die of cancer.
Jones: Oh, no!! Oh, nooo! Oh, Noooooooo. This is terrible. Wahhhhhhhhhh.!
Scenario Number 2:
Doctor: Mr. Jones you are NOT dying of cancer, but, you are feeling ill. It will probably pass eventually. Cheer up!
Jones: Oh thank you, Doctor! I feel so much better!
Scenario Number 3:
Doctor: Mr. Jones, you are dying of cancer. There is nothing science or medicine can do for you. Shall I call a priest?
Jones: Yes!
Priest: Don't worry, brother Jones. God will forgive all your sins and you will spend eternity in heavenly bliss. This life is but a shadow. Pray with me now.
Jones: Oh thank you, Father, thank you. I feel so much better........
Because when you get down to it, we are not totally logical beings.
This is a choice some people make. It is a terrible choice. Logic is a tool for removing contradiction between links in our chain of understanding.
When we tolerate contradiction we choose lies, misinformation, disinformation, false choices.
A more accurate way to say what you said would be to say this: Humans have a low tolerance for unpleasant facts and often decide to ignore them by pretending there are "higher" facts which nullify the consequences.
It all comes down to how frank and honest we are with our own self.
mankind does not always act in a logical fashion controlled by reason. We have emotions and feelings
Our emotions (and feelings) come directly from the values we hold. Our values come from CONSCIOUS evaluation if we are rational. If we decide to be lazy or to ignore reality our values come from the default setting: folk tales, rumors, opinions, wishful-thinking, etc. Our EMOTIONS are involuntary but the values that create those emotions are not---UNLESS we make them that way through default.
People who seem to be controlled by their emotions are really controlled by their values which are hidden to them because they refuse to actively participate in forming detailed, proven, opinions based on non-contradictory information.
There have been many times throughout history where man has decided that they knew it all and that science had answered the questions only to find out that there was more to learn and despite all of advances of science, both good and bad, religion and a belief in a Supreme being has survived
Scientific Methods make an effort to refute currently held theories. Science is therefore subject to disproof on purpose. God cannot be proved because imaginary persons are not subject to experiment or demonstrations.
America did drop the atomic bomb under the logic that it would save more American lives than an assault on Japan. In otherwords, because of the practical notion of our survival we used our technological advantage to destroy a weaker enemy. Sounds exactly like your definition of the benefit of science.
America wanted to scare the Soviet Union because we knew we'd have to fight them next. The Army desperately wanted to avoid an all out assault on the mainland of Japan. If you stop and think about it from a practical standpoint--it is no worse to kill thousands of people with a Tomahawk than it is with a gun or a bomb. It just SEEMS far worse because it is so quick and powerful. Killing is killing and war is war; both are immune to technology as far as motivation.
Sounds exactly like your definition of the benefit of science.
I can remove the plastic from a loaf of bread and smother somebody to death by putting the bag over their head. Is the Wonder Bread company to be held an accessory to murder???
