by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'm not sure this is a valid call on your part. I actually agree that this is the same sort of thinking we all once manifested. It is a good comparison.
You only think that because you are still thinking like a JW. None of your points are really valid, and your approach absolutely sucks. But I don't blame you---soon you will be free of the WT influence. I'll wait on you to catch up
Lulz.
Size, Old Generation makes some very good observations about the JW approach and when I brought up the JW approach being used in these debates, it is what I was talking about. He was more wordy and eloquent than me, but said what I mean. It's not a barb. It's not an insult. It's a true thing that is happening by some on the atheist threads.
FHN . . . I've read Old*guy's comments, but thanks . . . I referred to one of his posts in my comment. It's been said 100 times before.
I'll have to hunt back and find my definition of the WT approach. It is definitely a problem on this forum: that we can sink back into the witness habit of being so sure we are right and feeling like we have to spread the word.
Yeah well . . . it's an ex-JW forum, I wouldn't bother with a campaign to eradicate it. It won't happen.
Here's the problem FHN . . . who's opinion of just who has this problem is valid? Are they qualified as an authority on the matter? Is it a single comment that reveals this "JWishness" in them? . . . or is it continuous. Is it really an exclusive "JW" thing or something related to personality? . . . if so to what extent? How long has the individual been out?
Do they know the answer to all these questions? . . . and are well-informed on the in's and out's of human psychology and behaviour?
I don't believe anyone can make the claim with enough authority. Even if there is some validity (who knows how much) to attaching such a label . . . it is still an attack on the messenger not the message (and somewhat JW-like in itself) . . . and has no more valid place in a forum debate than name-calling and insults.
It's an attempt to invalidate a person . . . not a reasoned reply to argument . . . same as calling them an idiot.
The frame of reference is important. With what is the standard of acceptance or tolerance measured? Our worldview as a JW or as an xJW? A belief structure and personality? An environment or social circle? A larger social mechanism? A political, religious or societal ruler?
Also, would the effect of the "accusation" that you think like a JW change if it was said by someone who was never a JW?
Do you view people who've never been JW and who have strong personal convictions as having a JW mindset? If not, why?
JW think is biased to be sure. It ain't the only type out there. It ain't a perfect or pretty world sometimes. Everyone knows it should and could be better.
Perhaps invoking the Law is a psych overcompensation for feeling guilty of being judgemental as a JW, in other words, one needs to "accept" everything and those perceived as having conviction as former JWs i.e. ourselves, are a threat to this.
Perhaps not.
Sometimes I hate having to sleep in the middle of a discussion. Anyhow.
Tec- remember how I said I suspected that the problem you would have is defining anything essential for your god? Remember I am only wishing to examine the god you posit ( so these questions / answers aren't related to Ganesh or the Catholic trinitarian god for example) - if you cannot answer something about your specific god it means you really shouldn't be defining your particular god by your lack of knowledge. Your answers are exactly what I meant.
May I ask how any of those questions are proofs against anything?
Even if I did not know the answer, would that be proof against God, or simply proof of my lack of knowledge?
1 - don't know
2 - as far as I understand - based on Him being the 'creator' of life
3 - life is the living... what is non-life?
4 - what is non-life?
5 - lol, how would I know?
Peace,
tammy
If you wish to define life as an essential characteristic you need to be able to specify why it is essential and what it's absence means for your god. It's only a proof if you show what it proves. I didn't even need to get to any science to show that life itself is not an essential characteristic of your god since if you can't define it or what it would look like if it wasn't there or wasn't created then you can't claim it as a differentiating factor. By your lack of definition life becomes an evidence for anything and nothing.
Ok - second one. Same format. I need to understand what eternal means for your god and why it is essential.
1 - Does your god change in any way shape or form under any circumstances?
2 - Does he or she have a gender? Is gender an eternal characteristic or a transitory one? If it has gender and is eternal is it matched by an eternal alternate gender being or is the alternate gender unable to sustain eternal composition?
3 - Is eternal a definition in respect to: time ( this being either is either outside of time or has experienced all time and so knows that it never ceases across all time points?), metaphor ( in relation to us your god is eternal since we only exist for a few years ), knowledge ( knowing everything one could argue that you can extrapolate everything that will ever be and ergo experience it without needing to be there ) or in works ( everything was caused or individually crafted by your god so as long as time exists then something done by your god will endure ) -?
4 - Is all life eternal or can life be forever eradicated?
5 - Would your god cease to be your god if it was indeed capable of ceasing? What would occur if your god ceased?
You cannot disprove the existance of a creator, and this you already know. TEC
Tec - I bet you I can. Define something about your creator god. Q
I said that you cannot disprove the existance of a creator. Your questions are not related to such a thing. They are related to my understanding or lack thereof, which does not relate to whether or not there is a creator.
Nor was life the essential characteristic that I defined above.
Creator of life is what I said. Christ is life. Energy is life, and well... I think that pretty much covers everything.
If there was no creator or source of life, there would be no life.
I think that covers your specifics.
Next:
1 - Shape and form does not apply. But He does not change who He is.
2 - Encompassing the attributes of all genders, but not having a gender, other than what we apply to Him for our own comfort (such as that Him)
3 - Time, I suppose. No beginning, no end.
4 - I cannot know the answer to that question. I might guess that a creator could eradicate all life that He created. But that is a pure guess based on no knowledge.
5 - Questions again that I can't answer.
Again, these questions are based on my understanding, not based on whether there is or is not a creator. You will recall that I said that I could not prove anything. But you bet you could disprove a creator. But really, the most you can do is state that there isn't enough tangible information to prove or disprove anything.
Off to work now.
Peace,
tammy
Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey gives the debate another 30years before the creationist's throw in the towel.
So the only clear statement you made is that life = energy = god.
The sum of all observed energy in the universe is estimated to be zero so god is not.
Life is plainly not simply energy. An atom carries a certain energy state and is not biologically alive or conscious. Or do you think the rocks are thinking? Where you would cheapen life to simply a state of vibration I would present to you that life, as explored by science, is a self organising information set utilising energy gradients to accomplish resource sorting to allow imperfect replication.
All your other statements are inadequate. Since we are discussing your own personal god you are not allowed to suggest that you don't know the answer. I am not interested in using science to refute all possible creators I'm using it to disprove yours. You cannot hide your creator behind someone else's.
Not really wanting to partake in the discussion, I'd say it's a weak argument to say you can't disprove god. You can't disprove leprechauns either.
0.02
