by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
That you are more or less stalking cofty to bring up the same stupid point again and again should be obvious by now.
^^^^^^^^THIS ^^^^^^^^^^
The OP is very very simple.
The bullet points in the OP are facts - details will be refined but they will still be essentially true in 1000 years.
Arguments about what we mean by true or certain or flat are red herrings.
If somebodies theology cannot accommodate these and other facts they need a new theology - that's all.
Adam so technically, is it Dr. Adam then ?
Bohm said:
I dont see the point. The earth is approximately spherical no matter who or where you are. if it looks flat form one perspective it is not because it is flat, its because it looks that way.
The obvious example is it didn't look spherical to the authors of the Bible (amongst other ancient men), who's perception of the World was confined to ANE which IS essentially FLAT terrain; hence they conceived of a flat Earth, and God didn't tell them any different. Hence the 'inspired' Bible speaks of the round Earth with a dome-shaped firmament over it; it's also why there's many midrashim with rabbis discussing the same scriptures, thus amplifying that they too conceived of the Earth to be flat.
(It's interesting to contemplate what might've happened if the authors of the Bible lived on any of the few places on Earth where the curvature CAN be discerned with the naked eye from atop a tall mountain overlooking the ocean, observable due to the curvature of the ocean on the horizon.)
SBF: If we take other dimensions into consideration then the reality becomes somewhat more complicated than simply an approximate sphere.
how so? you are just trying to use some words you think are impressive and hope we will pretend you got any idea what you are talking about. you dont. if you claim there are other dimensions and accordingly the earth is not round, well, you got to explain yourself.
The first example that popped into MY mind when reading SBF's words is the perception of someone who LACKS stereopsis (3D, AKA depth perception), and hence is unable to perceive depth since they're monocular (their depth cues are only 2D). In their case, their perception is dramatically different than those who possess stereopsis, and a spherical shape will be indiscernable to them from that of a round spape, since they perceive in a different dimension than us (2D than 3D).
Probably better to wait before jumping to conclusions pre-emptively.
Oh, on this:
There is the perspective called reality...
That would be false.
Perspective is NOT reality, but is defined as one's view OF reality that is inherently limited by one's constrained viewpoint, and influenced by how we determine interrelationships and weigh comparative importance. It is one's perception of reality, which actually admits there ARE other weighs to perceive reality that might provide more insight into reality, in order to construct a model useful mental model OF reality.
If anyone's interested in the topic of preception, I'd reccommend taking a course in fundamentals of psychology that touches on models of perception, or even comparative anatomy of perceptive skills, etc.
Adam
cantleave said-
I'd love to read your paper, could you provide the references please.
Sorry, no can do, as it would obviously reveal my ID, and I'd prefer to keep that under wraps (I'm trying to liberate my family members from JWs, and disclosure of my ID is only potentially going to backfire, with possible unexpected consequences harming my efforts. Although I want to help others here, hopefully everyone can understand that my family members come first, knowing that JWN lurkers are people who talk, and they may be attending in congs with my family members).
Lost said-
Adam so technically, is it Dr. Adam then ?
Here's where I shift into SBF mode to ask, "wouldn't that answer depend on what exactly you mean by 'technically', 'doctor', 'Adam', and 'then'?
Adam
I have not read through this whole thread, so I am sorry if I am repeating points already made.
Does your Theology Align with Reality?
Well, first... one would have to be certain that they knew what reality was to begin with.
People tend to have a perception of reality... and that changes as more things in reality are disovered.
Thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct. However, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.
Saying that science cannot prove there is no god is not a dismissal of science.
It is simply a fact.
Theologians like John Shelby Spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.
If people constantly adapted to the 'truth' of science (which itself is a bad statement), then they would constantly have to change/adjust their beliefsl, showing that they do NOT know. Because science constantly changes. One would have had to believe at one point that the universe was eternal. Then that it had a beginning... (and whatever other theories have been held as true in the past, and will be held as true in the future)
Now if someone does not know, then simply state so. It is no big deal not to know something. Whether we are learning from science... or from Christ and God... we are still learning.
Sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.
Is it courage? Or simply a safety net so as to go with the crowd, and not be mocked?
I am not making a statement with those questions. Because it depends upon the person and their particular belief, as well as what evidence/source they base that belief upon.
We often witness people of faith on this forum who think it is a virtue to hold on to beliefs that science has exposed as impossible.
Sometimes, yes. Some of your bullet points are true... some of them are statements based on a particular interpretation, and so are not true.
These are not opinions of equal validity as religious beliefs, these are incontrovertible facts that will still be true in a thousand years. If everybody on earth forgot everything they knew and the process of human lerning had to start again from zero we would eventually arrive at these same facts. They are objetively true and they must trump religious dogma if theists wish to be taken seriously.
Same response as above.
Reality is far more exciting, fascinating and satisfying than any supernatural story. It is not necessary to reject the supernatural in order to accommodate reality but it is necessary to allow reality to set the boundaries of your beliefs.And again... one would need to KNOW that they have reality first. Science is about discovery, and one thing it has taught us, is that it has not come to an end. Peace, tammy
FFS!
How to turn a simple OP into a pi$$ing contest...
Some of your bullet points are true... some of them are statements based on a particular interpretation, and so are not true. - Tammy
No they are all true, objectively factually true.
If your personal beliefs don't align with them get some new beliefs.
adamesh:
The first example that popped into MY mind when reading SBF's words is the perception of someone who LACKS stereopsis (3D, AKA depth perception), and hence is unable to perceive depth since they're monocular (their depth cues are only 2D). In their case, their perception is dramatically different than those who possess stereopsis, and a spherical shape will be indiscernable to them from that of a round spape
you can close one eye and all but one avenue (which is one of the least reliable btw) of evidence would be available to you to reliably make the conclusion the earth is round, including talking to someone with proper depth vision. also, i notice it did not really address SBFs muddled point about actual spatial dimensions at all.
Perspective is NOT reality, but is defined as one's view OF reality that is inherently limited by one's constrained viewpoint, and influenced by how we determine interrelationships and weigh comparative importance. It is one's perception of reality, which actually admits there ARE other weighs to perceive reality that might provide more insight into reality, in order to construct a model useful mental model OF reality.
true, but still the earth is not flat... is there a point to this at all?
Adam, lol, i know aDr. of law, and she dislikes to be titled Dr. a fine woman she is. Very humble and pleasant.
Right my cup of tea.
Bohn said:
you can close one eye and all but one avenue (which is one of the least reliable btw) of evidence would be available to you to reliably make the conclusion the earth is round, including talking to someone with proper depth vision. also, i notice it did not really address SBFs muddled point about actual spatial dimensions at all.
"Not really address"? Did you overlook where I mentioned "spatial dimensions" of 2D vs 3D? Perhaps you ASSUMED he was referring to a 4th plane of existence, but I pointed out the flaw you made by failing to consider a valid possibility that he could've been referring to 2D, so you ironically proved his point by committing the fallacy of preemptively excluding valid alternatives.
And my point has no bearing on whether one chooses to close one eye or not. Fact is, people are BORN with monocular conditions and never develop depth perception skills, in the first place. Does even considering the POSSIBILITY of the fact that alternate perceptions of reality matter to you, or is it to be ignored as if it's less valid than yours?
See, that's the problem with not understanding that perception of reality is NOT reality; you're assuming some absolute standardized perception of reality exists, when there's NO BASIS to think it DOES. That kind of thinking leads people to conclude a God exists, justifying such a belief by claiming that such a standard MUST exist, so God MUST exist. It's silly use (abuse?) of logic, building conclusions on nothing but other conclusions.
Bohm said:
true, but still the earth is not flat... is there a point to this at all?
Yeah, I think it can be summed up thusly:
1) SBF thinks Cofty engages in an authoritarian style of an elder, due to his flawed over-confidence in what science claims to know, and his tendency to exclude other alternatives, and,
2) Cofty says SBF is stalking him to make point #1 which Cofty doesn't want to admit to, because of his refusal to examine his own beliefs (which ironically is what he's asked OTHERS to do, in this thread).
Lather, Rinse, and repeat: this could go on for pages and pages....
Adam
his refusal to examine his own beliefs
This is nonsense.
I have no misconceptions about the limitations and provisional nature of the scientific method.
In the context of this thread the bullet points in the OP are facts. Theologies that contradict these facts are not worthy of respect.
If you want to know my thoughts on the philosophy of science and epistemology ask me on another thread.
