If you don't know what's wrong it can't be fixed

by N.drew 220 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sabastious

  So in your mind the more likely explanation is that the guy floating the balloons is a hoax, and his neighbor saying he saw it is a hoax, and the aliens are real. I am frequently dumbfounded by people's....eh, whatever. Don't care.

  The Governer lied about the lights to the public the day after it happened. He said it was nothing, when he actually thought it was something. The "anonymous caller" could have easily been staged BY the state or city government to satiate the public and prevent widespread panic. Again, there was an entire show devoted to this topic and the weather baloon idea was debunked on it. They showed the video side by side with confirmed hoaxes and they look nothing alike. The Phoenix Lights remain unexplained. Please actually do your homework and stop flexing your google finger muscles. James is right, this is off topic. Maybe I will make a thread, but then again maybe that's just a big waste of time.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  If you consistently break a known law of physics, then we just learned a new aspect of physics.

  This is illogical endless loop which nullifies the very possibility of the existence of the supernatural by default. Maybe you should just remove the word from your dictionaries and be done with it?

  -Sab
• 

  JonathanH

  This is illogical endless loop which nullifies the very possibility of the existence of the supernatural by default. Maybe you should just remove the word from your dictionaries and be done with it?

  Exactly. In other words, the supernatural doesn't exist because it's a logically nonsensical concept. You're just one more step away from coming to that conclusion. You're right on the cusp and just need to take that one last psychological step.
• 

  tootired2care

  You gotz to ditch the fear first my man!
• 

  sabastious

  Exactly. In other words, the supernatural doesn't exist because it's a logically nonsensical concept. You're just one more step away from coming to that conclusion. You're right on the cusp and just need to take that one last psychological step.

  The supernatural exists, but cannot be conventionally documented... because it's supernatural. When you die of old age you'll see what I mean.

  Close your eyes and picture a beautiful meadow. That image would not be possible without the supernatural force of God. Just like the elusive source of gravity the source of our thoughts is unexplained. The way our brains work is partially explained, but the source of cognitive thought is not. The source of abstract reasoning is supernatural just like the source of the Phoenix Lights. Without God there is no progress, there is no growth. We are just rocks without him.

  -Sab
• 

  talesin

  This is illogical endless loop which nullifies the very possibility of the existence of the supernatural by default.

  Thanks, Sab. That totally explains the illogical beliefs of religion, and the "God concept".

  Purrrrr-fect!

  tal
• 

  sabastious

  Thanks, Sab. That totally explains the illogical beliefs of religion, and the "God concept".

  It must feel powerful for you to pigeonhole the billions of people from religions of past and present into one derogatory buzz term.

  re·li·gion /ri'lij?n/

  Noun:

  The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

  Rejecting the idea of a higher power is much different than being against belief in a higher power. The former is harmless and the latter is world breaking and sinister.

  -Sab
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Sab... there was a time when you had a more rational grip on reality. I fear your judgment has been compromised by your overwhelming desire to believe. Don't take me for a poo-pooer. The discovery of alien life or higher intelligence would be awesome - I mean that. But I think you've just lowered your standards of evidence to get there..... instead of waiting for better evidence.

  Perhaps a conspiracy has taken place but I'm surprised how certain you arethat it's otherworldly. Why immediately leap to "aliens" when you could dream up other conspiracy explanations that are just as untouchable and unfalsifiable, yet still originate in a known realm?

  Which is least plausible?

  A. a coverup has taken place, even above the governor's head, to conceal the fact that another country flagrantly flew their advanced aircraft over US air space. It would be an embarrassment to the US Department of Security and our entire country if the truth was known. The truth has been classified as a matter of national security.

  B. a coverup has taken place, even above the governor's head, to conceal the fact that aliens from another solar system flagrantly flew their advanced aircraft over US air space.

  C. There was no coverup, because the government had no clue what happened but they needed to prevent a panic among superstitious crowds. In reality, for the sake of a hoax, some college students devised a way to make it APPEAR that there was a silent, football-field-sized spacecraft hovering over the city, using individual lights to resemble a V shaped alien ship.

  D. any number of other misapprehended natural events or hoaxes...

  If you were of age to take notice in the 1970s, and you had this current mindset that defaults to supernatural whenever something is unexplained, you would've said crop circles were the work of visiting aliens, just as you've done here. I'd wager that you would've said something like, 'no humans could've done that. We don't have the technology! Since it is unexplained it was supernatural.' And I fear you'd have stuck to your guns. And when Doug Bower and Dave Chorley came forward in 1991 to admit their hoax, I wonder how you'd have reacted.

  Here's why this whole thing bothers me: If you teach your kid that such low standards of evidence and conjecture are perfectly acceptable for hypotheses, awesome! Look at the history of scientific discovery. Uncovering reality requires imagination and speculation.

  But if you teach your kid that such things are all that's needed to label something as factual, you're setting him up to be taken in by charlatans. What would stop him from becoming a JW someday? How can someone refute the claim that Jesus took the throne invisibly in 1914 if they default to supernatural explanations when nothing else readily comes to mind? How else could CT Russell have known that 1914 would be significant?
• 

  sabastious

  SBC, I do not think that everything that lacks explanation is supernatural. I think THOSE particular lights were supernatural because of a variety of factors. Eye witnesses all described flickering brilliant light within the orbs. They all said they couldn't have been weather baloons. The testimony is just as important as the footage which you are unaware of because you didn't watch the special (you are debating without all the facts). They also described it as nothing other than a craft because there was a shimmering translucent material in between the orbs which resembled a hull. They also said it was triangle shaped. There is no technology that can achieve such a craft, it's splitting hairs to insist that it's possible, it's not. It was not weather baloons, it was not a government cover up, it was not college kids who had an unknown translucent material on hand, it was VERY large. It was completely unknown to every party involved and it scared the hell out of everybody who saw it. Something happened, and it was special. I have faith in that and I don't really expect you to understand.

  Here's why this whole thing bothers me: If you teach your kid that such low standards of evidence and conjecture are perfectly acceptable for hypotheses, awesome! Look at the history of scientific discovery. Uncovering reality requires imagination and speculation.

  I'm touched by your concern, but if faith in one's hypothesis, despite opposition, was never encouraged then science would never have become what it is today. How many people, scientists even, tried to undermine the work Edison or Darwin? You are just more strict than me, not more intellectually honest. One day you might find yourself fighting against the next Darwin without knowing it.

  But if you teach your kid that such things are all that's needed to label something as factual, you're setting him up to be taken in by charlatans.

  I will teach my child to be himself because I know it's my job to make sure he remains good (I have cast aside the doctrine of original sin). I look at myself as a guide not an obstruction. I will teach him about charlatans, and I will hope that my instructions will guide him along a path of a special type of skepticism when something is attached to money, which the Phoenix Lights are not and never were.

  What would stop him from becoming a JW someday?

  That's a tough question and it really depends. There is an age of accountability and it's different for everyone. Some people need to experience something before they realize it's wrong. I am for consistent education and providing a stellar example, not merely prohibiting based upon my own judgement.

  How can someone refute the claim that Jesus took the throne invisibly in 1914 if they default to supernatural explanations when nothing else readily comes to mind?

  I have had supernatural experience in my life, many times. That's a big difference between you and I. So, it's easier for me to call the lights supernaturual because I believe I have experienced such phenomenon. Russell was a clothing salesman turned religious figure. It wouldn't have taken too much savvy to see through his own confirmation bias and moneymaking schemes. I am an exception and I strive to figure out why that is.

  Basically this is just a difference between you and I, not a failing on my part or an inconsistancy. If I did not have my experiences, maybe I would lean more skeptical. I am a man of faith and you a man of science. That doesn't mean you don't believe in anything and I fall for charlatans, it just means that we approach existence on the same planet from polar opposite manners.

  -Sab
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Okay, Sab, I'll stop pushing. And I hope I didn't come across as suggesting you're not a good parent if you don't make a scientist out of your kid. That wasn't my intent. I was aiming to grab a fallacy we both agree on and use it to illustrate the need for critical thinking with consistency. If I got too personal there, I apologize. From where I sit, you seem to be very caring father.