I'm sure putting up with you requires a whole LOT of faith
You got that straight. If I believed in saints, I'd nominate her.
Uh-oh...
by AGuest 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Nickolas
I absolutely buy the Adam and Eve story
Well, I stand corrected. Re-corrected. Whatever. I should not be surprised since (although many Christians have argued otherwise) I have taken the position that taking away the Adam and Eve story takes away the rationale for the messiah - or do you disagree with that presumption, too?
-
just n from bethel
RE: Aguest's reply to me:
Which is why you used the expression "Uh-Oh" - nobody uses that when they think something is wrong or bad. You can reword it however you want. But basically you want to make it out that science - in your word is "untrustworthy". In doing so you completely miss the whole point, as usual. What the article really shows is the process of discovery. If you were to use this process to examine what you think are visions or voices from your lord, and the process presented extensive evidence that you were only experiencing effects of a medical condition - you would refuse to believe it. However, you, along with countless other believers in personal revelations from their Islamic, Hindu, or Christian supernatural lords, will likely never use a scientific method to prove it's not a medical condition. But what I see - is that religous believers of all sort, love to jump up and shout anytime a scientific theory or discovery is later changed or shown to be incorrect. Of course that's the whole point of the analytical process - and the scientists accept that - even if it proves incorrect something they once deeply believed was correct.
-
Nickolas
Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't my fault, after all.
-
just n from bethel
My bad Nick and Curtains - - easy to miss some of the nonessential details when your multitasking at work. Nonetheless - misdirecting the issue to being about general moral caliber of scientists vs Christians is not really the point here. It is about the process of discovery, plain and simple.
BTW Nick I'm not closed to reading Dawkins or others from the standpoint of me discounting his thinking. I'm sure it is quite in line with some of my own ways. I simply have no desire for the sake of time - my personal time that is. I'm sure I would agree with much of his rationale as I probably already do. I just have chosen to spend time on other things I enjoy more. It's kind of like why I never read COC and other Franz books. I'm sure I would agree with many of his points, But reading it would take time I don't have and all it would do is reinforce much of what I already believe about the JW doctrine. Sorry if my quick post made it sound otherwise.
Right now I'm more interested in reading Seneca and Diderot.
-
Nickolas
That's cool, jnfb.
I'm signing off, Shelby. I've wasted enough time fiddling with this keyboard today. Time to spend a little quality time with the old gal. Catch up to you later.
-
Curtains
just n from bethel I assure I was not commenting on the moral calibre of scientists vs christians but simply commenting on how you framed your oppositions in order to make your points - just like Dawkins - nickolas also seemed to draw a parallel.
nicholas
Exactly how many Kingdom Halls are in your community, Curtains?
I don't consider that the Jehovahs witnesses who attend kingdom halls in my area have had the opportunity to examine scientific evidence to the degree that believers on this board have. It seems to me that more believers change their minds, when consistently provided with scientifc evidence against chrished beliefs than those who don't on this board.
-
eric356
This isn't a mistake. It's science working the way it always has. Scientists don't look into a microscope and then declare absolute truth. These scientists made some very interesting measurements that may support their hypothesis. If their methods or assumptions are wrong, this will be quickly pointed out by other scientists. It will eventually become clear if these organisms have entirely replaced phosphorus in their major biological systems.
The problem is that the media jumps on every paper, and the general public doesn't understand science enough to understand that the truth lies in accumulated evidence, not singular discoveries.
This process cannot be compared to "spiritual leaders" and "theologians" sitting around and then suddenly declaring they know the will of God without any evidence.
-
just n from bethel
Curtains - Well however you see it and think others saw it - I never framed an idea that directed attention away from the process. Nothing I said had anything to do with saintliness or whatever. That was what you did and it doesn't seem to address the issue. But since I never have even read Dawkins, I could care less how he may try and make it about the people. I was only speaking about the method. It is not used in religion.
A) A person of deeply held religous convictions posts an article that she thinks is an example of how science is "untrustworthy".
B) That very process though, of discovering factual conclusions, which may later overturn or add to the original conclusion is exactly what makes science trustworthy.
C) The fact is, that many religious individuals (particularly ones that try to preach their version of Christianity here) don't carry out that process on their own beliefs. Now I really understand that some just don't want to. They are happy with their current belief system and they prefer not to analyze it's veracity using a scientific method. I can respect that. But to criticize the process itself, when applied to scientific discovery, that's the kind of thinking that will keep people in the dark age mentality - heck it could even keep some doubting lurkers in the Witnesses.
BTW OT - why do those who were never JWs (or raised to be), nor married to one, come here and post their brand of beliefs? I know it's not a lot but, if I was happy with some Christian belief system or other denom, I could never picture myself going to an ex-mormon or ex-muslim board and posting scripture after scripture, knowing that there is no way I could relate to them. Just me, I suppose. Sorry OT.
-
Curtains
just n from bethel, nowadays Dawkins memes are everywhere not just in his books. But I'll own that I'm barking up the wrong tree as I do have a lot of respect for science. However the NASA funded scientists let the side down badly by publishing their findings prematurely and using bad science.