Evil Spirits

by LizLA 294 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  tec

  I don't know that any of us "want" to start talking so. We kind of don't have a choice... because that's the ONLY "language" some of YOU know, speak, and so will communicate in. So then, we're forced to try and communicate in a scientific form of "Spanglish"... which WE admit to because we ADMIT we don't speak "science." But "you're" adamant position that ONLY science CAN be spoken... and refusal to learn OUR language... creates this situation. Not OUR unwillingness to learn YOUR language. I mean, we TRY, dear one. Can the same be said of some of YOU?

  But... this wasn't a post ABOUT science, dear one. YOU (not you personally, but in the general sense) made it about science. Then YOU (not you...) attempt to force US to make it about science, too. Then, when someone TRIES to accommodate... YOU (not you...) try to rip her to shreds. When she SAID, "I don't know enough ABOUT science to put it in such terms."

  Yes, and yes :)

  (well, I don't feel ripped to shreds or anything, but yes)

  This is why it was funny that I was searching and searching my mind, trying to find out what 'protocol' of discussion I was using to try and explain spirit ... "come on, Tammy, think! What protocol are you using, think think; there must be one! Name it!"... when I was simply trying to discuss and share. No protocol involved, lol.

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  ahhh so frustrating. tec - you use words like 'show' and 'listen' as though your god manifests himself in naturalistic ways. If you wish to suggest that somehow your physical body is capable of experiencing extra sensory perception (so you aren't seeing, smelling, hearing, touching or tasting your god) then you are suggesting a lot more than simply we haven't yet got the right machines (because we can do all those sensory things listed with machines.) You are arguing for additional sensory capabilities in your brain.

  Science however, has observed the brain while the the temporarl lobes where stimulated and some test candidates described feeling an extra being. So there is actual evidence that the brain itself is responsible for all invisible beings experienced subjectively. i know this will not make you stop and think becasue you have nailed your colours firmly to the mast of magic thinking. Your god has less evidence going for him than the dream I had last night.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Jesus, that was a Shelby length post!

  So, on to Tec :) ....

  Yes we know its incomplete; emergent; not tested... no way TO test... yet.

  It's more than just incomplete, it's just an idea that has no hypothesis, not even an idea of what it would take to test it, AND it goes against EVERYTHING that is testable and verifiable.

  Cool. There's just probably far, far more to waves and energy, etc, than we can currently now. Of course there is.

  Agree. However, for this theory to be true would be like saying that there is more to cakes than we know, you can make cake batter from a box, put in the oven and take out nuclear grade plutonium. Or an apple.

  I can't do that because there was no test, and the science, tests, terms, etc... is not there yet.

  No worries, I was just explaining how ideas become theories. It starts with observations some are just mathematical observations, implications of taking things to their logical conclusion. I seem to recall reading about some energy experiments with black balls that absorbed solar energy. A hypothesis on energy conversion was known to be wrong after someone observed that the math for the hypothesis led to a black ball absorbing solar energy would lead to the ball having infinite energy. Clearly that wasn't right, the math was adjusted and a hypothesis that worked perfectly was developed.

  But it all started with an observation. In this case, nothing is there except some people saying "Well, this *might* be true..." and then giving nothing else.

  You could be right about some people. Probably not as many as you think, though.

  Beleive it or not, I am pretty lazy. I generally try not to think as that cuts in on my golf, football and golf time.
• 

  AGuest

  Shelby - I know your language very well. I can speak it fluently.

  With all due respect and I mean absolutely NO impertinence, dear Cofty (peace to you!), I don't think so. I have NO doubt that you might know the language of, say, the WTBTS, religion, even theology, very well... and can speak those fluently. But those are not my language. Sure, there are some words that appear to be similar but in truth really aren't. There's no way FOR you to know my language, though... unless you know the Truth... which you openly admit you do not (you don't even believe he exists). So, I am not sure how you can know my language... which is HIS language. That's like saying, "I don't believe Atlantis exists... or ever did... but I know its language very well and can speak it fluently." How can you speak the language of something YOU admit you don't believe exists... and fluently?

  I took the time to learn science, it was very hard work but immensly rewarding.

  I took some time in that area, as well, dear one. I took Earth Science, Phyiscal Science, Study of the Cosmos, Chemisty, and Biology in university. Loved them all! I even took Topography, Earth Contour, and Map Reading. I did for two (2) reasons: because the WTBTS had pretty much forbidden it (and so, pretty much anything they said was "taboo" was on my list, including attending university to begin with!)... and I wanted to "know"... to have a least a basis for understanding. I also did some self-research as to things like evolution and astronomy (still do, so's I can keep up with some of you!)... and I took three (3) years of philosophy courses, too (what did these know/say that the WTBTS was SO dead-set against me knowing/hearing??).

  I have held on to some of what I learned... and some not so much (I don't use it in my regular day/line of work, so... use it or lose it - I lost it). BUT... I can "get" enough to, say, lurk on, say, a physics website. Which I often do. Yes, I have to look up terms, etc., but that's part of the fun - like solving a jigsaw puzzle.

  It's very frustrating to hear you and tec and others just making shit up and calling it science.

  You've not heard that from me, dear one... and I don't think that's what dear tec (peace, dear one!) is saying or doing, at all. First, we've not made up anything. Second, we said that it's NOT science but that science CAN prove it, although perhaps not now... if it has/uses/is given the right "tools." Third, we've said the "tools" are not what's common to science. Four, that it's not in opposition to science, that the two are not opposed, but only the methods folks like you wish to use to prove it is in opposition... because such methods can only prove what is PHYSICAL... and what we're talking about is NOT phyiscal.

  And so, please note that it's probably just as frustrating for US... that you THINK you know what we mean, even speak our "language" (and fluently, I might add)... yet, your comments show... again and again... that you absolutely do not. It's just as frustrating to US... that you make statements like we're "making things up"... which denotes not only deceit but bad intent: to trick others into thinking that things that do not exist, do exist. When nothing of the sort is occurring. It is frustrating to US... having heard (and perhaps seen) things... that perhaps you have not... to have you accuse us so. Rather than you saying... as you often wish us to do... "I really don't KNOW. I have not experienced what they say they have, but I cannot say that THEY haven't because... the TRUTH is... that I... don't... know."

  But... you demand that WE say we don't know. When we do. Sigh. Sounds like that "h" word is in play... again... dear one. Please know that it is QUITE frustrating to ME... and perhaps to dear tec... that you don't SEE this.

  Again, peace... and good health... to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  tec

  If you just make up your own version of science you can have both. Otherwise, yes they are in conflict.

  There is nothing in science that is in conflict with my faith.

  answering is fine but the invitation was to give some examples rather than just say yes!

  I gave examples. Do you mean some of how science has improved my life?

  If so, I might be dead without medical science... had to have a c-section... and my oldest might also be dead. Um... I'm talking to you, and I have a wealth of information at my fingertips. Science has shown us how broad and immense and majestic is the universe, which allows for some awesom sci-fi, as well as opening up great possibilities in our present and future. Things like that.

  Your beliefs are still magic thinking since you define them as supernatural else you must define your god as natural.

  Who says I don't define Him as natural?

  Once something 'supernatural' becomes tested, measured, understood... then it falls into the realm of 'natural'. But it didn't change. Only our knowledge and understanding of it changed.

  If your god is natural then what natural proofs are there of its existence?

  We'll get there. I would say that we're not looking with the right tools. We don't have those tools yet. Well, that's not entirely true. Faith would be one of those tools, listening in spirit... but we don't have the scientific/man-made/concrete proof-making tools to acquire the knowledge/evidence of God that would allow us to see Him as natural.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  AG - so when beaten by logic and scientific statements you back up to - 'you don't speak my language' - so therefore you are wrong. That just makes you really poor at explaining especially as it takes pages for you to make a point.

  Part of the scientific method is to look for tests that disprove your hypothesis. What tests have you done to disprove your hypothesis? I suspect you don't have any hypothesis you just have faith.
• 

  Qcmbr

  tec - faith isn't a tool its a psychological state of suspended skepticism. A tool is by its nature divisible from its user.

  The examples I was looking for were the mystical magic proofs. I know full well what the scientific method has enabled us to do and that's my point. It beat all the gods in a matter of 200 years even when the gods had thousands of years to share real knowledge. I wouldn't swop the last year's worth of scientific discovery for all the religious waffle and misdirection preached since the dawn of superstition.
• 

  cofty

  Sorry, I have no more patience for this thread. Shelby and Tammy invent science from their own imagination and their own theology from stuff god told them personally.

  There is no common ground whatsoever.
• 

  tec

  Lol, I can't keep up with all these posts :)

  EP, you addressed this to Shelby, but I'd like to chime in:

  Come on, that's bullshit and you know. That's the language and methodology of how things are tested. I can talk theology all day. The problem is your theology that you KNOW is true is different from MyElaine's, or BOTR's or a devout catholic, or a devout JW or a devout Baptist. There is no method of agreement and consensus so half the time you theological folks are all talking different ideas about the same thing and telling each other who is wrong.

  It is eactly the same in the scientific world. If there is one epert saying one thing, then there is another saying the eact opposite.

  Now you can lable those others as quacks, frauds, fakes, liars, ignorant, followers of whatever. There are still a lot of different voices, and opposing opinions. Less perhaps than in a theological discussion, because you have to rely on some measure of tangible proofs... and people CAN make up whatever they want to make up in theology... sometimes with absolutely no basis, but they can usually find something that seems as though it supports them. It is the same in the scientific community. Just that tangible, observable proofs can help keep some of those 'fakes' out.

  But just as there are 'fakes' in science, there are 'fakes' in theology. If you (not you, but in general) can dismiss all religion on that basis, then you'd have to understand how some might dismiss all science on that same basis.

  I think she knows and you do too that I like her quite a bit (and you too, for that matter)

  Yes, and it is returned.

  (Now, a year and a half ago, I would never have wanted to have this converstation with you, and I would have left off.)

  But there is mutual respect and affection between us. If not respect for WHAT the other believes/accepts (or doesn't), then for the person, themselves.

  When some evidence appears, I will re-evaluate. Until then, I won't simply think it might be true because I have no evidence. That is naive and gullable to the highest degree

  I don't disagree with you here. I have evidence for me though, and that evidence comes from my faith in Christ, and what I heard and saw from Him. I KNOW you can't accept that, and I do not judge or belittle you for it, at ALL. Nor would I even think to do so. Nor have you done that to me. But I knew if I shared that some would 'get it' and appreciate it, and that it might even help some others in their understanding, to ask for themselves (as many things shared have also helped me). I do not think that all will get and appreciate or even give credence to it. I accept and understand that completely.

  I don't believe things people tell me, just because they say it. I have to do all the research and ask questions too. But when it comes to matters of faith, and spirit, then I go to the One who is an 'e x pert' on those: Christ.

  I know that makes this type of conversation (between believer and non-believer)... um... difficult, lol. But there is nothing wrong with an e x change of ideas and thoughts, and views, and outlooks.

  It's not like the conversation is on a deadline. Or like we won't have it again :)

  Cute ;)

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  I don't think it is wrong to suggest people such as the OP may be delusional or have some mental disorder which should be investigated, however to suggest that is definitely the case and that is the end of the matter, rejects the experiences of countless people who have had such experiences and consider them to be real and not delusional and in some instances their view has been supported by mental health professionals

  Agreed.

  Peace,

  tammy