by zannahdoll 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Zanna - Trip was good. Great to see family and a friend. The drive up was awful - two accidents and one was a fatality - but we arrived safe and sound, so I'm thankful for that. (thanks also to everyone for prayers) The drive back was smooth and without incident.
Tammy
I love this:
The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm?
tec: good one :) glad you enjoyed your trip. Sorry to hear about the drive though.
What makes something mass hysteria? Is it because all the witnesses witnessed something supernatural: therefore they didn't witness it? Even when there are repeated circumstances? And when there are people who are physically altered after?
For a moment, for the purpose of this next argument, let's say that pink unicorns are in fact real. Although the general population do not know about this (the same way we don't all know you are wearing a pink t-shirt). You and 1,000 other people see this pink unicorn. You document it. Then the pink unicorn shows up more then once, another few thousand see it people see it. Then the pink unicorn dies or moves away. She doesn't come around anymore. You and some 5,000 + share with the world: "YES! I saw a pink unicorn. I documented it. I can validate it with other witnesses."
The world will not believe you. Mass Hysteria.
Then 100 years passes. Another unicorn shows up, only this one is blue and it shows up in another country and to a new group of a few thousand people... same things happen.
The world still doesn't believe you: Mass Hysteria, even now that it happened twice...
If something supernatural such as unicorns did in fact exist: why wouldn't people believe you if these things happen? Or would there be some people who did believe you? Would they be crazy to trust you (and the few thousand witnesses)? Or do they only not believe you because it is outside of their perception of the world? The fact that they can't perceive it being possible wouldn't change that it happens.
Isn't this similar to how we know our history? Before video camera there are history books: don't we get our facts that events happened purely because they are documented and there were witnesses?
Why is it easy for us to believe what we hear on the news as fact? Or a slice of life story a person tells you that happened to them? For instance if I tell you I went to a college lecture and there were some 50 students who heard the professor speak. If I told you the professor existed and gave an interesting lesson. I don't have it video taped. I have far less witnesses then the Marian Apparitions. The professor will be dead before another 100 years passes. There will not be a repetition of this event because I will not take this class again. However if I were to tell you that you that it is more likely you would believe me. Why? Because it doesn't conflict with your perception of reality. However both Marian Apparitions and professors that you never meet for yourself depend on taking someone else's word for it.
What about a sole eye witness to a crime? Should they take the stand in a trial? Should a jury believe them? Or should it be dismissed as hysteria? If there were 100 people to witness the crime then it would be mass hysteria... but no, we trust witnesses... because if they say something it is in our realm of understanding, in our world of perception.
When? I have not seen this done ONCE yet.
Atheists take things based on proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence. Sun rising, gravity, etc. Many time.
My point about eyes was that in order for us to use tools we need our senses to depend on them.
Of course it does. No one was arguing that it doesn't. However, if if the thermometer said 100 degrees celcius and someone misread it as 10, that would in no way alter reality.
You bringing up a voice synthesized thermometer doesn't discredit my point, it only confirms it.
I'm not sure what your point was. You said it took eyes and now you are saying to takes one of the senses. Please be accurate and precise so I know what your points are.
I showed that I trust my senses and take a leap of faith.
OK. Since you were using the example of Mary and people thinking God is real, I just logically extended that to any common mass hysteria or sighting event. So you trust your senses when you beleive in an invisible person in the sky that talks to you, but people that beleive in invisible people from another planet that talks to them, that's wacky? I am not sure what your point is except that you beleive in invisible sky people.
What I am saying it is like anything else: what is considered provable is based on our senses and what others tell us.
Ah, well, you're wrong about that. Again, it's been proven many times. Reading a thermometer using our eyes is not the same as beleive in Mary or aliens or Elvis or Jesus no matter how much you want it to be. Unless, of course, god appears and has a thermometer stuck up his butt and we can read it.
AND things that have been proven true have also, later, been unproven when we have more knowledge.
You keep arguing things that no one is arguing. And just a point of reference, they weren't proven true, they might have been believed to be true, but they weren't proven. In fact, that's why gravity is a theory. Scientists are well aware that that a thoery that fits all of the current observations and tests may not tomorrow. That's why science is self correcting. Of course, what you said is also true about god. It used to be "true" that the bible was right and the earth was 6000 years old. Science took care of that one for us, of course.
AND I am not saying anything new. Same points. We are going in circles.
Of course we aren't. You keep trying to equate faith in proven science to faith in an invisible sky person. You keep trying to explain science without uinderstanding the basic tenets. You keep accusing me of quoting you our of context without showing it when you are the only person shown to have done that in this thread.
It's not so much a circle as you keep throwing these arguments out there and they keep getting refuted.
What makes something mass hysteria? Is it because all the witnesses witnessed something supernatural: therefore they didn't witness it? Even when there are repeated circumstances? And when there are people who are physically altered after?
Elvis, Elvis, Elvis. He fits everyone of your questions :)
If Mary exists, then so must Elvis. I do wonder why only religiosu devotee's see Mary, though...
Isn't this similar to how we know our history? Before video camera there are history books: don't we get our facts that events happened purely because they are documented and there were witnesses?
Similiar, yes, but not the same. History can be verified and cross referenced with geology, archeology, and secondary records. People tendm, with good reason, to distrust records of people who have a vested interest in a particular outcome of the thing they are testifying to.
Why is it easy for us to believe what we hear on the news as fact?
Ususally because you are just relating a story and not trying to influence events. And because what you are relating completely doesn't matter so whether it's true or not, to me, is irrelevant.
I have far less witnesses then the Marian Apparitions.
Oh, sorry, have we discussed witness bias yet? Those people tend all be religious and WANT it to be true. They have an inherent bias that influences their witness and taints it.
Because it doesn't conflict with your perception of reality.
And because, if I were so inclined and if it mattered, I could check with the school, your classmates, the professor....
However both Marian Apparitions and professors that you never meet for yourself depend on taking someone else's word for it.
See "witness bias" again.
What about a sole eye witness to a crime? Should they take the stand in a trial? Should a jury believe them? Or should it be dismissed as hysteria? If there were 100 people to witness the crime then it would be mass hysteria... but no, we trust witnesses... because if they say something it is in our realm of understanding, in our world of perception.
Actually, sole witnesses ARE the worst because then it's one persons word against another. A witness plus fingerprints plus ballistics or DNA or other forensic evidence is much more desired. People often get off PRECISELY because the jury doesn't trust the witness or witnesses.
I've demonstrated amply that your assertion was untrue.
...
Atheists take things based on proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence. Sun rising, gravity, etc. Many time.
This does not disprove even one thing that I said. What I said is that people take things based on their senses and what others tell them. Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt. You know that to be a fact but cannot always prove it (if you took a picture maybe you could prove it - and then, even if you did take a picture you could photoshop it so the t-shirt is pink, etc). It may or may not be repeated, that doesn't take away from the fact that you wore a pink t-shirt. And to test it would be by documentation or eye witness - in which I would trust what someone else tells me. OR I would see you in a pink t-shirt for myself - then I'm trusting my eye sight, I'm trusting my senses. My question from the start is what is evidence? How do you know reality? My answer is the senses and what other people say - basically: our perceptions. So to say that atheists use evidence doesn't disprove my assertions.
History can be verified and cross referenced with geology, archeology, and secondary records. People tendm, with good reason, to distrust records of people who have a vested interest in a particular outcome of the thing they are testifying to.
Some history can, what people said and did cannot always be cross referenced. Also, there are things, such as the Marian Apparitions that have cross references. I would bet Elvis sightings and Alien Encounters sometimes do too. (Remember I am not saying I can PROOVE the Marian Apparitions, I am just saying that I believe in them and come to know them the same way you come to know things)
Oh, sorry, have we discussed witness bias yet? Those people tend all be religious and WANT it to be true. They have an inherent bias that influences their witness and taints it.
Interesting, brings to mind a new question: WHY do they want it to be true? There are people who hope things are true and then don't believe. As a child I believed in Santa Claus. I wanted to believe. I stopped believing because he doesn't exist and because I found my letters to Santa in a box in a closet. I found sufficient evidence that he didn't exist. There are people who want to believe and end up not believing. I think this board is a good proof to that: the bias to want to believe isn't enough. It seems to me many ex-JWs want to believe in watchtower stuff, it would make life easier, keep the family together, etc... the bias to want to believe isn't what makes people believe.
Which I have to quote tec again as to why people want this to be true:
The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm?
By the way: who doesn't have inherent bias that influences their witness? This can work adversely that you do not want to believe it, you find it ridiculous and so you are tainted to not believe it. You are tainted with an atheist bias.
And because, if I were so inclined and if it mattered, I could check with the school, your classmates, the professor...
If so inclined you could check with the witnesses of the Marian Apparitions throughout history.
See "witness bias" again.
See "atheist bias" again.
People often get off PRECISELY because the jury doesn't trust the witness or witnesses.
Yes, but not always so, in fact someone may believe a witness who doesn't tell the truth if they are calm and collected. If witnesses were not important then they would not be needed to take the stand. Witnesses would be skipped.
Here is the merry-go-round we are on:
(quick note: I'm paraphrasing, don't call me dishonest because of this: anyone can read what you write for themselves here, I'm not, nor have I tried from the start of this thread, to misrepresent you) You make a point about taking things based on repeatable evidence is how we know they are true but then I tell you what about things that don't repeat and then you say that reality changes. You say that reality doesn't always repeat and I say exactly: it changes, repetition isn't a basis for all evidence, for all reality. Some, yes, but not all. Then you say well that is perception, I say yes I agree - and that perception is how we know things and you say no, it is by repeatable evidence...
You have not proved ONCE my assertion is untrue. We are going in circles.
This does not disprove even one thing that I said.
Sure it does. Your assertion was that atheists take things on faith on the same level as non-atheists take god. Since the examples I gave have overwhemloing physical, repeatable evidence regardless of faith or belief and yours do not, your assertions have been disproved. Feel free t provide evidence that I can test that proves me wrong.
You might not LIKE it or understand it, but, like the sun rising, has been shown to be true indepedent of what you believe.
Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt.
Oh. You misunderstand. That was example of reality having nothing to do with YOUR personal experience. That was directly related to the side argument that personal experience equals reality, which, I have noticed, you are no longer arguing. If you want to use that as an example of the the faith argument, you need to provide an example of an atheist other than me that was making some kind of life decision based on faith in the color of my shirt, since faith in making decisions was the crux of your argument. Otherwise it's irrelevant to the faith argument as it was solely an example of reality being independent of your immediate observable perception.
My question from the start is what is evidence? How do you know reality? My answer is the senses and what other people say - basically: our perceptions.
That's been asnwered many times. If you don't get it, re-read all of my posts and I will answer any questions you have.
So to say that atheists use evidence doesn't disprove my assertions.
See my above answer. Of course it does. Belief in god is based on unprovable faith, belief the sun will rise tomorrow is faith based on mountains of evidence of every sort imaginable. Whether you realize or accept it or not is not something I can control.
Interesting, brings to mind a new question: WHY do they want it to be true? There are people who hope things are true and then don't believe. As a child I believed in Santa Claus. I wanted to believe. I stopped believing because he doesn't exist and because I found my letters to Santa in a box in a closet. I found sufficient evidence that he didn't exist.
That question is neither intersting or new. And you can't prove Santa doesn't exist, at least according to you. He's probably living in a gay love shack with Elvis.
By the way: who doesn't have inherent bias that influences their witness? This can work adversely that you do not want to believe it, you find it ridiculous and so you are tainted to not believe it. You are tainted with an atheist bias.
Awww....it's so cute when you resort to accusing me of something to prove your point. First, that is a classic as hominem attack and probably the most common debate fallacy and error. It serves only to weaken your position as it shows you have no real argument.
Second, that's why science has peer review to remove bias.
Third, you REALLY think that if a scientist could somehow prove the existence of god they wouldn't? That's an interesting idea, but people have been trying forever and it's not happened yet.
If so inclined you could check with the witnesses of the Marian Apparitions throughout history.
Sorry, witness bias. They are uniformly devout catholics that already belive in Mary and that she confers miracles so it is only in their benefit to beleive or at least report it.
See "atheist bias" again.
Aw fuck, you got me....oh wait. Peer review, exidence, repeatable, testable, demonstrable. Mary ain't none of that. Fail. Try again.
Yes, but not always so, in fact someone may believe a witness who doesn't tell the truth if they are calm and collected. If witnesses were not important then they would not be needed to take the stand. Witnesses would be skipped.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do anything since you took a maybe somtimes argument and bolted it onto a completely unrelated point that had nothing to do with the first point you were trying to make. Straws, you are grasping at them.
You have not proved ONCE my assertion is untrue. We are going in circles.
I've shown it many times. You tried vainly to argue science and had to learn most of the basic conepts and tenets, then resorted to misquoting me, then just ignored the bits you don't like, now are grasping at straws. Fortunately, reality has little to do with your abject failure to understand any of this.
I'll make you an offer. Pick a point, any point, and we can debate that point. It seems there are a lot of issues floating around, many of which you are learning about for the first time, so pick the one you are most comfortable with and I will be happy to debate you on it.
There is no ad-hominem. Asking who doesn't have a bias isn't an attack on you, it isn't accusing you of anything. It is a question, and the point I was making in asking the question is that all sides have a bias. Just to through out names of fallacies doesn't mean that it is that fallacy. This is why I loose you so often, you make off the mark comments like this.
As far as the Marian Apparitions: there are non-Catholics who go to Marian Apparition locations out of curiosity and then believe. And again: there are people who want to believe something and then, when they do not see it for themselves, they don't believe in spite of wanting to. Also, adversely there are people who don't care one way or the other, or who don't want to believe because they think it is ridiculous superstition and they have already made their minds up about it: and then they see for themselves and then believe. I can dig you up real people who didn't start off Catholic who believe in the Marian Apparitions.
The examples you gave are still based on "overwhemloing physical, repeatable evidence" but did not show that that evidence was regardless of faith. Just saying that it is regardless of faith doesn't make it so. How did you personally come to that evidence? How did any other person in this world come to that evidence? At some point they had to depend on their senses or on what someone else told them - their perception.
Here is a perfect example of taking what I said out of context instead of the whole concept:
Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt.
I never argued that personal experience = reality. I argued that personal experience is how we know reality. Do you understand the difference? The fact that you say I "no longer argue" that shows me that you did not follow what I was saying, even though you claim to have followed just fine. It is one thing to say that you don't think I'm being clear, but to say you follow me is stating that I am clear because you understand my point.
We agree that things happen wether or not I like it or not (never said otherwise as you seem to assume that I have - circles!!!).
What I am saying is that what an atheist, using your words "takes" to know reality isn't always on all this provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, etc... blah blah blah evidence. That is the same as the theist. (it seems a little odd when you call the theist the the non-atheist - isn't that like saying the non-non-theist? Saying "theist" is more to the point, you and I already have issues with semantics, might as well try to keep a clear language.)
You know reality based on your senses. You know you wear a pink shirt because you look down and see it. To share that reality, to share that fact with others how can you do so? You tell them? You take a picture? You show them in person? All depends on our senses or trusting what you say to be true. If I know you are wearing a pink shirt or not doesn't change if you are or not. However for me to know reality, for me to know a fact, I need my senses.
The one point/concept I make is the same, has not changed once:
We know things based on our senses or based on what other people tell us (which is our perception). We are limited to understand what is real/reality/fact/evidence by our perception. Our perceptions sometimes fail us, however we depend on it to function in the world, we depend on it to test things, to know anything. Usually it is accurate and so we trust it. That trust is faith. And it is a leap of faith because it isn't always accurate, because people's perceptions differ and conflict and so on.
If I make another or a second point it is this:
Our knowledge is limited. When we receive new knowledge sometimes what was once known to be a fact is disproved. I made an example of it being logical to think that the Earth is flat and then later, once our knowledge increased, we find out it is round. [You discredited this because, well, I guess you feel everyone, with intelligence, always knew it was round.] One day we may have further knowledge what shows another possibility we cannot conceive of at the moment because we don't know of it.
I also cut and paste from wiki that the problem with evidence is our limited knowledge.
Long story short: (not saying anything new from the first points, just sort of summing it up)
There are ways to know things: evidence/fact/reality not only through repeatable/testable evidence (sun rising) but also through one time happenings and untestable events: (my surgery, your pink shirt)... We can have evidence that is not based on repetition or tests. We know evidence in the end, including the repeated and tested kind of evidence, purely because we sense it. If we never sense it: yes: it still exists: but it is only because we sense it that we know about it.
Okay, I'm getting off the merry-go-round because I can't imagine anything new you have to say except that you will continue to put me down saying "how cute" I am for putting you down or misquoting you - now that is an implied ad hominem because you are being sarcastic. If you met me in person you might think I am cute without the sarcasm. I've been told, sincerely, I'm cute before. Then again, your perception may differ.
notverylikely: You said:
It seems there are a lot of issues floating around
What?! You don't know? You need hard evidence, repeated, quantifiable; never use a word like seem if you always need hard proof. Nothing should seem like anything by your standards.
