by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends
If I take some of the things you have said seriously then its clear this back-and-forth exchange is not a positive thing for you. Its difficult for others not to respond of some of the things you write so maybe have a breather if you feel it getting you down.
JWN doesn't get me down, EP's way gets me down. Makes me doubt humanity. Ignoring him will fix that up lickety split.
-Sab
God doubted humanity once, but if you check the Study Bible of the New International Version it has a table entitled "Major Covenants in the Old Testament." Under the "Noahic" covenant it reads this description:
An unconditional divine promise never to destroy all earthly life with natural catastrophe, the covenant "sign" being the rainbow in the storm cloud.
The world will not be destroyed again, that would be cruel. The essence of my faith is that God is the knight in shining armor. He actually saves us like he saved Noah.
-Sab
Under the "Noahic" covenant it reads this description
Well that doesn't make sense. God never destroyed all earthly life, never threatened to. Why would he promise to not do something he never did or threatened to do? And why would he be the knight in shining armor? He caused the problems with his screwups and lies. Seems like he is more the knight no one ever wants to see again because we are better off without him, a bit like an abusive father.
Sab..
The flood is a Pagan Story adopted by people who wrote the Bible..
There was a Massave flood that created the Black sea..But..
It was`nt globel..
I`m sure the people who experienced it thought it was..
..................... 
...OUTLAW
"I call myself an atheist because I am unconvinced by the evidence presented that a God exists. I make no claim, however, that a God cannot exist." From your post #2 on this thread.
I understand your position. I'm probably somewhere close to that. However, there is some less clarity in my mind about what an "atheist" means when we look at some of the definitions and compare them to agnosticism. For example, I found that agnosticism may describe you more than atheism:
"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. [2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
The latter description reminds me more of your own description. So, could you be an agnostic rather than an atheists? Possibly, by some definitions. The reason I looked up that definition is because I was reading a book recently (perhaps it was something I read on-line) and the "harder" definition of an agnostic came up. It intimated that the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that God (or anything mystical) does not exist (by what evidence, I'm not sure) but that the agnostic does not recognize any convincing evidence to completely rule out God.
I also recently blogged about a contrast between Richard Dawkins (a fierce atheists endearingly called "Darwin's Rottweiler") and Paul Davies (a well known physicist and an expert on the Anthropic Principle). In his book "The God Delusion", Dawkins criticizes agnostics possibly even more severely than he takes theists to task. He basically believes that agnosticism is intellectually dishonest. However, he does not directly refute Davies' views. Davies on the other hand, has made the statement that in Science, there are times when we need to accept things by faith. The implication is that this "faith" is as valid as the faith of theists who accept God by faith.
Davies deduction is that since the laws of nature we use to explain matter and the world (namely those of Quantum Physics) break down and are useless when explaining the sub-atomic realm, we must accept by faith and not by proof (experimentation) that the world is as we explain it. Furthermore, even if the laws are correct, what explains the laws? That is what introduces us to the Multiverse (the Antrhopic Princple), which basically states (in the Strong Anthropic Principle only) that there must be an infinite amount of universes where every possible combination of the quantum constants (the ones we know) exists in other ratios. That would give rise to the combination of constants we happen to find in our own universe. The problem (which is Davis stronghold) is that we cannot verify that and therefore must accept it with a certain degree of faith. Davis has therefore proposed the following possibilities for our existence:
1. The absurd universe - It just happens to be that way.
2. The unique universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics, which necessitates the universe being this way. Some 'Theory of Everything' will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The multiverse - Multiple Universes exist which have all possible combinations of characteristics, and we naturally find ourselves within the one that supports our existence.
4. Intelligent Design - An intelligent Creator designed the Universe specifically to support complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.
5. The Life Principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The self-explaining universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: 'perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist'.
7. The fake universe - We are living in a virtual reality simulation.
Yes, it's kinda tongue-in-cheek. However, it leaves us pretty much guessing and not having any guarantees of anything either from theologians or scientists, which is Davies' point. So, I feel comfortable choosing option no. 7 in Davies' list, which makes the "atheist" and "agnostic" rather transitory.
Outlaw I understand that it was a local flood, I even made a thread about that. Previously I said that characters of these mythology stories should be looked at as real people in order to understand the plot. You also have to look at the events that happen to them as real, like if you were watching a movie or reading a fictional book. The character of Noah was considered ancient even to Abraham who is now well encased in mythology himself. We are talking about going back so far that you would expect them to be speaking about the "whole world", especially if they were all killed in a natural catastrophe. However there is a wild theory that I have. Noah could have been on Venus back when it had life on it. I don't think there is enough conclusive evidence to suggest that life on Venus was as intelligent as us. I think there is enough evidence for belief however. The first thing you'd have to do to have this belief is divorce from the idea that the "earth" of Genesis is the actual earth. Call it Venus in the past, or even a planet before that in a different gallaxy, it's not far fetched anymore. Give's whole new meaning to the word: Lucifer which is a light that shines brightest on Earth, because it's the closest planet.
-Sab
Check out the Canaanite mythology on "Lucifer":
In ancient Canaanite mythology , the morning star is pictured as a god, Attar, who attempted to occupy the throne of Ba'al and, finding he was unable to do so, descended and ruled the underworld. The original myth may have been about a lesser god Helel trying to dethrone the Canaanite high god El who lived on a mountain to the north. Similarities have been noted also with the story of Ishtar's or Inanna's descent into the underworld, Ishtar and Inanna being associated with the planet Venus. The Babylonian myth of Etana has also been seen as connected.
And then compare that with Luke 16
11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
So, the Canaanite mythology has a story where a 'god' tries to usurp a throne. Doesn't this same story being told over and over make you wonder why it's so popular? The Judeo-Christian explanation that we are a fallen species in need of redemption falls in line perfectly with many mythologies? Why not believe there is a "Spirutal Throne"?
-Sab
The Judeo-Christian explanation that we are a fallen species in need of redemption falls in line perfectly with many mythologies? Why not believe there is a "Spirutal Throne"?
Because your Johnny-come-lately God stole these stories from their predecessors. Why believe in a religion that so obviously stole it's best bits from everyone else?
Oh, and Sabby, can you explain your stance that cutting off baby penis parts = gravity because God?
Well sab...liar is a strong word...I prefer deluded...I save the term liar for real liars.
And I'm getting a bit side tracked with all this stuff happening down a dark alley...
It appears that after you left the Watchtower you went into religion study mode, which is a good thing, but what about experiencing other religions...sab
Actually...it was the other way round. I'd checked out a few religions and beliefs BEFORE the JW's.
And I think you are confusing atheism with not finding the 'right' religion. Atheism is not about religion...it's about non belief. Period.
When we 'believe' we are just mugs waiting for the next fix to come along. Religion, weirdos that hear voices, gurus, anyone with a self proclaimed silly spiritual ideas is acceptable, because if you dismiss one, you have to admit that maybe the others aren't real too.
How can you say others aren't possible and yet yours is, when none of you have any proof of anything that is claimed. So you have to allow for every claim that every nut job makes to be true. I mean, even a schizophrenic in a psych ward that talks to Jesus has just as valid a claim as some evangelist don't they? How can anyone say they don't and yet say someone else that hears a voice is REALLY hearing god?
Even someone that murders their family and says god told them to. How can you claim he didn't if you believe god talks to people. Their claim is as valid as anyone elses. Just because it's not what you might think fits into your understanding of what god would want, it really means nothing, because so do many religious ideas. And yet they aren't dismissed. The bible itself points to murder because god told them to.
Once you start to admit that to yourself....then you have to honestly look at your own belief and how valid it is.
How can you say others aren't possible and yet yours is, when none of you have any proof of anything that is claimed. So you have to allow for every claim that every nut job makes to be true. I mean, even a schizophrenic in a psych ward that talks to Jesus has just as valid a claim as some evangelist don't they? How can anyone say they don't and yet say someone else that hears a voice is REALLY hearing god?
To be honest we as a species, and especially laypeople like you, don't even know what a schizophrenic really is. Sure we have a rudimentary map of it, but it's a pretty big mystery to be unraveled (otherwise we'd know exactly how to deal with them and we don't). I believe civilization thinks too much of itself as to conclusively say what is a disorder and what is not in such a manner. Instead of drawing such a convoluted and frankly lazy conclusion, really, there is an easier way to look at it. You have social behavior and then you have anti-social behavior.
In physiology and sociology, social behavior is behavior directed towards society, or taking place between, members of the same species. Behavior such as predation which involves members of different species is not social. While many social behaviors are communication (provoke a response, or change in behavior, without acting directly on the receiver) communication between members of different species is not social behavior. The umbrella term behavioral sciences is used to refer to sciences that study behaviorality disturbance in general.
Anti-social behavior (with or without hyphen) is behaviour that lacks consideration for others and may cause damage to the society, whether intentionally or through negligence. This is opposed to pro-social behaviour, which is behaviour that helps or benefits the society. Criminal and civil laws in various countries offer remedies for anti-social behaviour. Antisocial behavior is labeled as such when it is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct. This encompasses a large spectrum of actions. Murder, rape, use of illegal substances, and a wide variety of activities are deemed anti-social behaviours. In addition to actions which oppose established law, anti-social actions also include activities that members of society ?nd objectionable even if they are not illegal, such as drunkenness and sexual promiscuity. In psychiatry, particularly in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, persistent anti-social behaviour is part of a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. The ICD-10 defines a conceptually similar dissocial personality disorder.
In these groups, ST, that you joined before the JW cult, would you classify them as lead by people more in line with the first paragraph above or the second? Really what we are looking at is the difference between Herd Animals and Predator Animals. The former is social and the latter is anti-social. The argument could then be made that even predator's act socially with each other, but that's exactly how anti-social humans operate. They surround themselves with other predators like themselves so that they can have a social network, because their default position is to hunt flesh and consume it. They have to have a "pirate code" so to speak with ones' of like mind.
-Sab
