Why do you have to pray to God to beable to understand the Bible?

by Number1Anarchist 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  John Doe

  John Doe,

  Isn't what is confirmable and testable, to some extent, subjective?

  In other words, who decides?

  The case will remain open until its final disposition by the Judge of the universe.

  Sylvia

  There is no judge of the universe. And if there is, I publicly call him on his bs.

  The problem with applying subjective experience to the universe is that your subjective experience means squat and doesn't affect reality in any way. You might od on some pills and meet the tooth fairy and the cookie monster, but that in no way means they exist. I have less and less respect every day for people who promote self delusion and bull shit.
• 

  snowbird

  Thank you, sir.

  I, too, have little patience and less respect for anyone who makes the kind of categorical, dogmatic statements such as you have.

  So there.

  Sylvia
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I have less and less respect every day for people who promote self delusion and bull shit.

  There really isn't much of a response to this short of saying "have a nice day". It is a waste of time discussing anything with someone that affirms such a complete certainty about the mental health of most of the population.

  BTS
• 

  John Doe

  I, too, have little patience and less respect for anyone who makes the kind of categorical, dogmatic statements such as you have.

  My statements may be categorical, but they are neither dogmatic nor untrue. Honest truth seems to be greatly undervalued by nearly every theist I've met.
• 

  John Doe

  It is a waste of time discussing anything with someone that affirms such a complete certainty about the mental health of most of the population.

  I do not apologize for being confident in my analysis of available evidence. If you have compelling proof, scratch that, if you have any proof that I am wrong, I welcome you to present it. Until then, Myth and allegory will remain in their proper positions, and that is not an object of my time, devotion, or consideration.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I do not apologize for being confident in my analysis of available evidence.

  It has little to do with confidence, and that is a red herring. As I said earlier in the thread, I need prove nothing to you, only to myself. I am working off of a different premise, and that is my choice. As for not making such things an object of your time, I respect you regardless of it, even if you do not respect my own differences in this aspect. What I do not respect is your arrogance and intolerance of others.

  BTS
• 

  John Doe

  As for not making such things an object of your time, I respect you regardless of it, even if you do not respect my own differences in this aspect.

  Respect must be earned and does not come about automatically. You saying you respect me regardless of my positions, and I presume my actions, suggest that you might not understand the nature of respect. Either I warrant your respect or I don't.
• 

  veen

  Yes, quite right BTS. 'Arrogant' intolerance to things which are wrong is a bad thing. Of course, how stupid of me. All along I've had this misguided idea in my head that I should speak out when I see the Emperor has no clothes on, when what I and others like me should do is respect his delusion and not say anything concerning the matter in order to help perpetuate the falsehood. That way everyone can keep on believing he has an amazing suit on that is so fine it is invisible to the naked eye, even though he hasn't. What possible harm can this kind of mentality bring?

  "Let's give mortgages to people with no money and no job, it will be fine."

  "Yes let's, it won't be a problem as you have just stated."

  "If we keep on doing it, everyone will think it's the right thing to do"

  "We win"
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Either I warrant your respect or I don't.

  You don't, because you must give respect to get it and you have not given it. People like you sound no different than religious fundamentalists, just on the other side of the argument. Utter intolerance of divergent opinions, and I do not respect that under any guise.

  Like I said we start from different premises , the questions are: What is the nature of knowledge? How do we gain knowledge? How do we recognize the difference between what is true and what is false?
  
  The primary difference between you and me appears to be the response to these questions. My response reveals an underlying assumption that faith is a valid starting point for the acquisition of knowledge along with reason; while you reject faith as a starting point in favor of reason alone. The thing is, at least I am consistent and have my eyes open--you are not and do not. You accept a whole lot of truths on faith whether you know it or not, but are too intellectually dishonest or just plain muddle headed to recognize it. You must start on some first principles, premises, axioms, etc, which cannot be scientifically proven, but are the underlying philosophical assumptions that science and your own assumptions about reality itself rest on. But you certainly do talk like you have all the answers, don't you?

  BTS
• 

  John Doe

  You must start on some first principles, premises, axioms, etc, which cannot be scientifically proven, but are the underlying philosophical assumptions that science itself rests on. But you certainly do talk like you have all the answers, don't you?

  I make no claims as how everything came into existence, or if everything even had a beginning. At the present time, this is unknowable. I do take for granted that the universe does exist. Beyond that, there are few to no first principles, premises, or axioms that I accept without evidence.

  Whether you believe that the world rests on the back of a great turtle or that Zeus came down and pounded a Swan makes no difference in the end.