Cheers,
Ozzie
"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Anonymous
the intellectual laziness in jh, ks & follo...
by elke 61 Replies latest jw friends
-
ozziepost
-
Erich
larc:
>Erich,
You confuse me. You call JWs hypocrites regarding a belief in God..<
Yes. A part of JW's are hypocrites. Look at the UN-matter. What had happened in that matter, could at any time happen in other matters.
Any JW, who believe that God doesn't see what he's doing in the dark, is a hypocrite regarding its belief in God. -
funkyderek
This was one of the best articles I read in this forum.
You should read more, Erich. It was haphazard block-quoting of the opinions of some science teacher. Hardly groundbreaking stuff. There are no facts presented in the post, just one person's opinion and the statement that he has a PhD. And it's not even well written. What did you think was so great about it, Erich?
I'm sure, in a few years all types of scientists (philosophers, physicists, even mathematics..) will intellectually overwhelm such guys like haughland, steinhaug etc
Scientists aren't en masse going to reject reality any time soon. You really should read more, Erich.The science will prove the existence of GOD !
And until it does, I, for one, will continue not to believe.--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire -
Erich
funkyderek.
I am busy in scientific matters (signal quantizing methods etc.) and I have read enough scientific literature. Please believe me...
Fact is there is a new generation of physicists, who call now in question nearly all established cognitions.
Do not believe too much in "realists" like Marvin Minsky, Gell-Mann,
Kurzweil and others. The current physical world-model is changing
totally. What you'd read 5 years ago, is now overwhelmed; at least by cognitions which are not completely revealed. There are even cognitions about G.U.T's getting protected and patented(!). They are not to be read in book-shops. Thus, the WTS have no access to such wisdom too...
Sorry. You do trust too much in school-wisdom. Forget it. -
Pathofthorns
"Although it isn't stated directly in the Bible, God seems to prefer a balance of evidence: there is enough reason to believe if we want to believe, but not enough to intellectually force belief against our will. Instead of overpowering us with undeniable logic or mighty miracles until we grudgingly give up and give in, God wants us to want to come to Him.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous lines of reasoning I've ever read explaining a lack of evidence. Basically it is an admission that you have insufficient effidence but you still have to believe anyway despite having incomplete facts.
Anyone who carries this sort of 'thinking' and 'logic' through life will continually be taken advantage of. In fact, they almost deserve to.
Path
-
funkyderek
Erich, I'd be interested in your sources for what you claimed above. I guess my knowledge of physics could be a few years out of date (are superstrings still in vogue?) Just the names and issue dates of a few recent journals should do. I have a fairly good grounding in physics so it shouldn't be too difficult to catch up, but I need to know where to start looking. Thanks in advance.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire -
Gozz
Elke,
did you read about Craig Rusbult?
This website is an extension of my PhD dissertation, which is
You do just like your masters in the writing Department of the Tower. Search the Net and the UN library for whatever it is you want to show, copy, paste, and print; new light. Leave Craig Rusbult alone, okay? He's humble enough to explain the origin of his works.
a synthesis of ideas (mainly from scientists and philosophers, but also from sociologists, psychologists, historians, and myself) about scientific method. In a long process involving multiple revisions, these ideas have been changed and rearranged, summarized and colorized, and extended from science into other areas of life.Degrees:
BA (chemistry, UC-Irvine),
MS (chemistry, UW-Seattle),
MA (history of science, UW-Madison), and
PhD (curriculum & instruction [science education], UW-Madison). -
Erich
funkyderek
Maybe the book: "The End of Science" by John Horgan could be of help.
But sorry, this book does not describe the very new cognitions and wisdom made in the last 5 years. It only "rumples" the intellectual establishment, from K. Popper 'til Murray Gell-Mann.You'll get more infos and stuff from my side when there is enough time.
-
funkyderek
I think I have that book, although I haven't read it yet. Too many books, not enough time. Any info on the latest in any major scientific journals would be nice. I haven't heard of any developments in any branch of science that make the existence a god more likely/necessary, but I'd be interested in reading of some. When you have time, of course.
--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire -
Abaddon
Thank you elke. I have been looking forward to ramming this particular piece of theistic nonsense where the sun don't shine for a while now, but have not had the opportunity.
Please remember, that atheists can judge trees according to their fruits too. You making this an attack on named individuals just makes you look like a bitch, and does nothing to enhance your arguement. It sets the tone though. You obviously don't read your Bible that much, as this is a nasty little hate-filled post, the like of which really shouldn't come from anyone calling themselves a Christian. That observation aside, let cut to the guts of this guy's arguement;
Although it isn't stated directly in the Bible,
So this guy is adding to what is said in the Bible. Isn't that un-Biblical? Last verse of Revelation I think. There is no line in the Bible that says "I have made my existence un-provable, as I want belief to be by faith". I suppose god thought that actually stating he was playing games with our lives was a little too obvious.God seems to prefer a balance of evidence: there is enough reason to believe if we want to believe, but not enough to intellectually force belief against our will.
Ah, so this is conjecture. God 'seems'. Great. How... convincing... and you say that atheists are intellectually lazy, when you seem to think this is some great convincing arguement? When it's not. The statement "there is enough reason to believe if we want to believe" is great, it's a matter of opinion, and it cuts to the fundamental truth, one I would not dream of argueing with, that believing in god is only possible if you want to.However elke, the fact that you can only believe in god if you want to is not proof of god, or of the arguement he then proceeds to make. Oh, and the idea put forward here seems to contradict god being desirous that none of us are destroyed, as turning its existence into a guessing game would inevitably lead to 'collatoral damage' amongst those who reasonably concluded there was no god.
Instead of overpowering us with undeniable logic or mighty miracles until we grudgingly give up and give in, God wants us to want to come to Him. With this balance there is authentic free will, and the choice is primarily made not by intellect, but by heart and will.
Wow, a whole raft of presumptions.First of all that we would "grudgingly give up and give in" if god proved its existence. Speak for yourself. I'd love it.
Secondly, that "God wants us to want to come to Him". This makes your god very petty and human. Like, it doesn't prove it exists, and expects people to do it anyway, so it can just sit on its omnipotent ass and be worshipped. This is actually CONTRARY to the nature of god as revealed in the Bible! Have you ever read that book? God is mostly smiting mightily, or sending his son to tell us about him. Looks like god is doing an awful lots of coming to people, rather than letting them come to him.
Third pressumption, that this gives us freewill. Eh? We would have freewill even if we had definative proof of god's existence. This is provable scriptually. Satan rebelled, and exercised freewill by doing so, yet he KNEW god existed. So you can have freewill and know god exists, they are not mutually exclusive states as suggested here. Hell, seems this guy doesn't read the Bible too, or is 'intellectually lazy' or just plain DUMB. Oh, and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try the arguement that angels don't have freewill... as this means god made Satan rebel, and the demons fall, and is the root of all human suffering, and it really makes god into a monster... I love it when Christian's do that, it's fun... they make the whole of human history a game played by god, with no care for the suffering its game produced.
Final presumption from the above section is that choice should be made by heart and will, not intellect. Hah! This shows traces of tradional beliefs that the heart is the source of reason, when all it is a rather good pump, and that willpower is somehow removed from intellect. When you're daft as a brush willpower might be removed from intellect, but mine is nicely synchronised, thank you, and the idea of god apparently giving us this intellect and not wanting us to use it is risable.
A balance is also needed for developing the "living by faith" character so highly valued by God.
Funny, this guy hasn't quoted one scripture yet to support the absence of proof of god, it's all speculation...In a world where it may seem justifiable to be intellectually agnostic, God wants a non-agnostic faith, a total spiritual commitment, a true repentance followed by a complete trust in God that is manifested in all thoughts and actions of daily living.
So, this guy speculates that god wants us to come to him (despite this is not proved in the Bible), and that he doesn't prove his existence as he wants us to have freewill (which is false, as proven in the Bible, as you can KNOW god exists and have freewill ANYWAY), and on this lack of evidence makes the assumption "God wants a non-agnostic faith, a total spiritual commitment, a true repentance followed by a complete trust in God that is manifested in all thoughts and actions of daily living."I prefer phrasing this as "Certain Christians believe god does not prove his existence as this would remove our freewill, despite the fact this belief is contradicted in the Bible, and assert that belief is a game god expects us to play without giving us a clear set of rules, or a pitch to play it on, or anyone visable to play with, and that he wants us to act like mindless zombies without freewill, worshippping something our minds tell us isn't there".
Thank you elke, I enjoyed that. Rex repeats arguements that didn't work, and it gets dull refuting the same old stuff AGAIN. Shoving this particulary stupid concept where the sun don't shine brightened my day.
Yet another theist giving me reasons not to believe in god...
Erich; My, but you're pleasingly deranged... I base this on the fact you are what we call in England "All talk and no trousers", i.e. you claim a lot but prove NOTHING, and by the fact you say the post elke made was "... one of the best articles I read in this forum", when it was piss-poor.
Unless you want to join the role-call of dysfunctional losers who no-one takes seriously, I would actually post a substansive article giving scientific proof of god, or showing recent developments that indicate such a proof might one day be available.
You can site books all you want, but I take the trouble to present quite detailed extracts of material here I have learnt elsewhere, or to post resources available on the web. You can do the same. To me saying 'x book proves my point' and not bothering to provide an extract is not worth my time or money investigating, as when I have in the past it's been a waste of time AND money. If you think elke's arguement is a good one, you would probably have found "Chariot of the God's" convincing, and I haven't the time to read crap.
So, give us an extract... or stop claiming things you can't prove...
Don't worry, I'll let you know if it's too complicated for ickle me.
Abaddon
(wearing his arrogant "can't be arsed with time wasters hat")People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...