by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"So? Neither do 99% of people, including atheists, when they refer to the God concept. That is the convention. I do not believe God has a gender, either, but I still use that term as a placeholder for the idea...." Burns, page #6, post #5500
Sloppy, Burns, very sloppy - and inaccurate.
If you REALLY think 'deity' is an "IT", then refer to 'it' as "IT"...
Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but – which is even worse – also any prospects at a better future. - Max Planck, winner of the Nobel Prize, and founder of the science of Quantum Physics.
Botch . . . you don't need me to point out the basket full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs in that quote. He may well be a talented physicist, but how can any credibility be given to such a heavily biased statement. It's an opinion based on wild assumption at best . . . deliberate and mischevious propaganda at worst.
I think this video explains why certain people see "patterns" which, for them, confirm their belief systems...
As the speaker states near the beginning [at approx 2:20-25...], humans are "pattern-seeking primates"...
No conclusive evidence for the existence of God can be found externally through science . . . to date.
Therefore, all belief, true or not, is a product of the human mind . . . a perceptive deduction.
The deduction is not based on evidence and doesn't need to be, because it is the default position taken up by the human mind. Where a high level of intellectual complexity exists . . . the percieved threats to existence become more manifold through the ability to conceptualise (what if?)
Similarly, mitigating these threats becomes more intellectually and conceptually complex. But the comfort from belief is likely a complex survival mechanism. The brain seeks to account for all threats to existence . . . death being the ultimate threat. Belief gives relief in the short term by allowing us to "sleep at night", and in the long term by dealing with a percieved future threat . . . both outcomes being essential to health and survival.
That's why "leaps of faith" are often made so easily . . . it's just slipping gently into default. For that reason, it will also remain for some time yet.
Dispensing with belief is not natural . . . and those holding to such beliefs will probably live longer. Living without belief is uncomfortable and stressful . . . anybody who says otherwise is an exception or dishonest.
The sciences that will challenge belief most vigorously in future are not cosmology, geology, archaeology etc. They are neurology and psychology.
Living without belief is uncomfortable and stressful . . . anybody who says otherwise is an exception or dishonest.
I don't know Size---I have a great deal less stress now than when I believed. If it was only the good things---the warm and fuzzy stuff---maybe I would agree, but it's not. And the energy required to keep up the cognitive dissonance is astounding. When I let it all go, and my brain was finally able to just connect at will, it was a great relief.
On the one hand, it's nice to think there is some outside help and purpose to everything bad we experience. It's nice to think there will be some second chance, or that things are being tallied on some cosmic balance sheet. On the other hand, the thorny parts kept me up a great deal more than the reallity parts ever do. And I know a lot of people like this.
So while I agree, it comes with it's stresses, for me it also came with comfort that I never experienced before. I just wouldn't trade one for the other.
Again, pulling from past human mythology to illustrate - or would that be, to legitimize scientific discoveries in the minds of theists....
And who is doing that? I am not. Maybe you are trying to read too much into my posts.
None of the quotes you've pulled actually mention any solid FACTS
They don't need to, Zid. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, or otherwise. I am merely showing that science and religion need not be in conflict. For all of these scientists, it was not.
If you REALLY think 'deity' is an "IT", then refer to 'it' as "IT"...
I'll refer to "deity" in whatever fashion suits me, but thank you for your suggestions. Whether I use "he," she," or "it," I hope you understand my meaning.
Botch . . . you don't need me to point out the basket full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs in that quote. He may well be a talented physicist, but how can any credibility be given to such a heavily biased statement. It's an opinion based on wild assumption at best . . . deliberate and mischevious propaganda at worst.
I think this is what he believed. He said it, obviously. I don't see it as anything other than a statement of his opinion.
And only a "small" mind continues to ignore the very significant question of the validity of the OLDEST "deity " versus some recently-generated Middle-Eastern fantasy and the modern "world-fusion" nebulous "god" that some have tried to transform it - "him" - into.
These things are all labels, Zid.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
Again, pulling from past human mythology to illustrate - or would that be, to legitimize scientific discoveries in the minds of theists.... Zid, quoted but not credited by Burn
And who is doing that? I am not. Maybe you are trying to read too much into my posts. ..." Burn, page 7, post #5516
Knuckl - I was referring to the scientist's comment about the "Cosmic Egg"! Didn't you read my post????
"Whether I use "he," she," or "it," I hope you understand my meaning...." Burn, page 7...
Not if you're switching genders around like that. "Goddesses" were worshipped FIRST - and from a LONG time back. Then came the male "gods", and more recently, the gender-neutral "it" has occasionally been used...
...recently-generated Middle-Eastern fantasy and the modern "world-fusion" nebulous "god" that some have tried to transform it - "him" - into. ..." Zid, quoted but not credited by Burn...
These things are all labels, Zid. ..." Burn, page 7
A convenient dodge. They aren't "labels", anymore than the various names and characteristics and personalities of ALL the wide variety of 'deities' worshipped by various humans in various locations and various times, all throughout human history, are just "labels" for some nebulous "one god"....
"World-fusion-religion" cocktail, anyone??? Blended, not stirred...
