I Think That I Chose My Parents.

by Englishman 124 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  Everyone,

  I would just like to apologize to everyone if my comments were to harsh, but I just felt the thread was going in a certain direction where “believers” (sorry to use that term) were patting each other on the back and not giving the other side of the issue a chance. From my point of view, I didn’t see it as healthy for these beliefs, which have been thoroughly debunked over the ages, to go on unchecked. I was not trying to poke fun at anyone, and I am truly sorry if I came across that way. I think you all are great people and I do enjoy the discussions we have at this place. I just think that we can all learn from one another – it’s impossible for all of us to know everything about everything, but fortunately in this day and age there is such an abundance of easily attainable information that we can point each other to. Unfortunately there is a lot of crap out there too, but anyway…

  I agree that science doesn’t have the whole picture. There are things about the brain that we cannot begin to explain. And maybe certain phenomena that we all experience (because I have experienced weird things too) will be better explained in the future.

  Believe me – I don’t think anyone is making anything up. All I’m saying is there are simpler explanations that have been found and published. In my own opinion, we are all more empowered when we shed the shackles of superstition. Knowledge is power and has led us to the most enlightened and advanced period of human existence. Whether we want to admit it or not, this is due to the scientific method – not to magical powers.

  I guess what I’m trying to say (and not so well) is that I really like you guys and I’m sorry if I offended you. I look forward to having great discussions with you all. We have so many similar experiences to draw from and I know that by participating it has made me a better person over the last couple of years.

  Your friend,
  rem
• 

  JanH

  Rem,

  Thanks for your good comments. Like Carl Sagan expressed it, you provide a much welcome candle in the dark, to shy away the demons of superstition. It's good to hear that some people at least understand that this alienation from science is probably the most dangerous development in the world today. Kudos also to Tina, larc and perfectpie for speaking up.

  Es called science "cold." Perhaps. Obviously, science has a serious PR problem. We see that in the public perception of science in TV and movies, the lack of funding, skepticism towards all new things, eco-hysteria, etc, etc. We also see that science studies in universities suffer from bad recruitment.

  People are, thanks to the developments of science, living a life mostly sheltered from the harsh realities of nature. In times past, during the perhaps 500,000 years of human existence we have behind us, somewhere between 99% and 100% of all humans living were desperately fighting for their food, from day to day. Illness and death was the natural order of things.

  As late is in the 1782, when the situation was much better than it had ever been earlier in history, the enlightement philosopher Rousseau said that it was the natural order of things that half of all children died before their eighth year, and it would be futile to try to fight that. Those who are parents can perhaps imagine how it would be to live this grim life. This -- or actually a worse condition -- has been reality for all humans until the last century, when science brought progress our predecessors couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams.

  Is science cold and sterile? Perhaps. But it brings and protects life. And without life, there is little use talking about feelings and emotions. It was the passion that is human that brought the pioneers of science to work towards this goal (and further), but it was the cold thought of reason combined with hard work that gave the results.

  The superstitions and ignorance of the masses, living in ignorant bliss of what holds the harsh realities of nature at bay, are indeed threatening the foundation of our civilization. It is that important. So be it if we have to offend some people who think they hear voices in the process of spreading that message. It's perhaps the only message in human history that would deserve a zealous evangelization campaign.

  - Jan
  --
  "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
  -- Albert Einstein
• 

  Esmeralda

  Hi Rem,

  I appreciate your thoughtful response. I just have a few comments to make about it.

  What makes me feel sick is when I see ignorance – just
  like I think you might feel frustrated inside because your sister believes all of that JW
  garbage. Now I don’t know if you feel that way or not, but I have a hard time believing that
  you think her beliefs are A-OK.

  My problem with my sister isn't necessarily in that I disagree with her beliefs: it's in the fact
  that while I respect them and would coexist with them in our relationship, she can not do the
  same for me. Again, the issue is respect and tolerance.

  The problem here is that the opinions that are being proposed on
  this thread are uninformed opinions. There is such a thing is fact and fiction –
  certain things are factually correct and are
  supported by evidence and others are not.

  There were those, in time past who insisted there was scientific evidence that the world was flat. When
  they were told otherwise, they declared the idea the concept of the ignorant. This isn't a situation
  that can be completely explained as simply as knowing that two plus two always equal four.

  Isn't it just a little bit arrogant (and I'm not singling you out, Rem, I am applying this in general
  to anyone who calls the beliefs of another ignorant) to think that anyone who doesn't believe our 'reality' or our 'fact'
  over 'fiction' in these philosophical matters is uninformed? Because this is exactly what they are, philosophical. There is no formula to totally explain every occurrance in human life, and I'm glad about that. Otherwise I'd feel like my future was already written.

  Also, I didn't, at any point say that I wouldn't accept a scientific reason for things (I'm pulling
  an example out of my hat here, so don't jump on me y'all *LOL*) example: near death experiences
  being a biological subconscious reaction explainable by biochemistry (I'm not saying they are or aren't,
  again my opinion isn't the point here). I would be open to considering all information on the matter before
  I come to my own decision on it. Then, I would hold my opinion whether or not it was the scientifically
  popular one, because it is the right one for me. Just as you must choose the right belief system for
  yourself.

  I just wish that you could say something like, 'I believe this to be so, and this is the reason, (insert
  evidence here) but I respect your beliefs without needing to declare you ignorant for holding
  them.'

  I am open minded: to science, to less explainable phenomena, to lots of things. That to me
  is the greatest luxury of no longer being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have to have
  all the answers, for myself, or anyone else. That is very freeing.

  Thank you for the interesting exchange, I look forward to future posts from you. We may continue
  to have differing opinions on this subject, but we have made each other think today, I believe, and that is always a good thing.

  Es

  The Four Agreements:
  Be Impeccable With Your Word
  Don't Take Anything Personally
  Don't Make Assumptions
  Always Do Your Best
• 

  Tina

  Hi rem,
  I certainly enjoyed your posts!! Thanks!1 I've read most of the books you listed...Great stuff,,,,,have you read anything by Wendy Kaminer? I have a few on order and can't wait to explore them,,,regards,Tina
• 

  JanH

  There were those, in time past who insisted there was scientific evidence that the world was flat.

  
  A popular story, but totally untrue. People knew the earth was spherical centuries, perhaps millenia, before anyone came up with anything resembling science.

  Science is not a belief system. It is a toolbox of methods for enquiry into everything that can be observed -- indirectly or otherwise -- to try to 1) find out exactly what happens; and 2)understand what forces cause these events.

  Science is a methodology for finding out what works and is true, as opposed to what is untrue. The vast majority of beliefs people had in earlier times have proved to be untrue or unsound. Some have no observational consuequences, or are so popular that scientists are polite and leave them alone (ie. belief in a supreme creator-god).

  Some few ancient practices have actually been proven sound, and these are retained. There are medicines on the shelves today that were also used in ancient Greece.

  When science -- which is nothing more than systematic application of careful observation and sound logic -- have rejected something, it is extremely likely that this thing deserved to be rejected, because it was not true.

  - Jan
  --
  "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
  -- Albert Einstein
• 

  larc

  Esmiralda,

  I wanted to comment on some of your remarks. You said that on one time there was scientific evidence that the earth was flat. Actually, that is not quite true. At one time there was very little accumulation of known facts. With absence of fact, then any one of a number of theories are equally likely. Now today with what is known, if someone said that the earth was flat, then I would say that they are ignorant. I think for someone told me an implausable theory on any subject, means that they should supply the evidence. In my opinion after much study, I conclude the evidence for psyhic phenomina is weak at best. You said that this was a philosophical issue. It is more than that. It is one that can and has been subject to careful investigation. Time after time, the phenomena did not materialize. You mentioned near death experiences, I assume you are referring to the many cases of people seeing a tunnel with light at the end. This is known to be caused by oxygen deprivation. The same phenoma can be replicated in a human centrifuge. This finding is mundane and doesn't have the awe and mystery of earlier competing theories. However, I prefer truth over mystery. You referred to what is popular from a scientific point of view as if popularity was the key factor. The key factor is accepting a theory that has the most evidence for support it. If you choose, for whatever reason, to believe a theory that has less support, that, of course, is your business.
• 

  Esmeralda

  Hi Jan,

  Science is not a belief system.

  I respectfully disagree, but you could have guessed that I would *lol* :)

  Some have elevated it to the level of a religion. You yourself said that it deserved an evangelical compaign :)

  Again my point is not the issue here, but my right to believe one way, and for you to believe
  another without having to call me ignorant.

  larc,

  To you and Jan I say, I stand corrected for having said it was believed 'scientific fact' that
  the Earth was flat. I should have used the word theory, that was the word I meant
  to use. Still I believe my point was made.

  As far as near death experiences, I did not give my beliefs on the matter, if you read my post again
  you will see that, I said that my opinion didn't matter. I merely used it as an example. My beliefs on it are irrelevant,
  because I was using it to demonstrate my point.

  You don't know what I believe about 'near death experiences'. I never told you.

  In fact, if I did, it would surprise you, considering you already have seem to come to
  your own conclusions about what I do and do not believe. We might even agree on the subject,
  but you don't know because you assumed you knew what my answer would be.

  I, too, prefer truth to mystery. I just don't consider my opinion, or those of any man, superior
  to those of any other man. It is not my place to judge my fellow man.

  I don't believe that there is a black and white here: either you believe in all this esp stuff or you don't:
  people believe in degrees. It is not that clear cut, that is why I shouldn't have used the phrase
  believers/nonbelievers. It's too narrow. That was again a poor choice of words on my part.

  I respect your opinions, larc. I just feel uncomfortable with anyone who has such a need to make
  everyone else's views wrong so that they can justify their position.

  Peace,
  Es

  p.s. I appreciate all the comments made by everyone in this thread, I feel like I've said
  all I can say, so I thank you all for your time and want to let you know I'm leaving it here. My eyes
  are tired and it's time to log off now :)
• 

  JanH

  I respectfully disagree, but you could have guessed that I would

  
  It's amazing that you think a simple "i disagree" means anything. Of course you disgaree. But that is of no consequence, because you have no arguments. There is nothing factual to support your position. It's just wishful thinking from your part; you build on something less solid than sand.

  I know a bit about science, and I have some creditentials on the subject of religion. Yet, it's the arguments and not the persons coming with them that determine what is correct.

  So I ask you to substantiate your assertion, Es. How do you define religion? How do you define science? Explain how science is a religion.

  This is how a rational enquiry works. If there is one thing this world has more than enough of, it's people who think they can resolve complex social or technical issues from an armchair.

  - Jan
  --
  "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
  -- Albert Einstein
• 

  Esmeralda

  Jan,

  I am secure enough in my own ideals not to have to defend them to you, or anyone else.

  You may say that is because I have no 'arguements'. This is not the case, in reality,
  I have to budget my time and energy (and eyesight) because of my health limitations. I do not care
  to continue this conversation.

  I respect that you view things scientifically. I am not saying that I am right, and you
  are wrong. I do not need to be right, I just need to believe what is 'right' for me.

  If you carry on true to form you will probably say that I'm a coward or don't have anything
  worth saying and that is why I am terminating my part of this discussion. That is not true either.

  I have just learned to recognize when I am wasting my breath, because no matter how much I talk,
  you won't hear me anyway.

  Thank you for the comments that you have made. I have listened and thought about them.

  Have a nice day.
  Es
• 

  dark clouds

  This post is becoming a debate synanymous to proving whether or not god exists. . .

  Here we are debating whether or not psychic abilities are real or not. of course we are going to have opposing views. The nonbelievers want hardcore facts, the believers could care any if they are believed or not, they know what they have experienced. There are valid points to both sides of the argument. . .

  When a born again claims that the holy spirit has decended on him and shown him the light, do we accept it or do we think he is nuts? When someone claims to have seen a ufo do we judge them? when it was brought to our attention that the WT dabbled in the occult did it make sense or did it take us into denial?

  It all comes down to tolerance and respect, i dont think anyone here is trying to change anyones opinion on the matter, most of us here are strong, fairly intelligent and open minded individuals, in search of good subject matter to discuss, wanting to expand our horizons.

  I think the attacks should be saved and the words thought out before submiting them to the board, that way saving the bickering and keeping the post in focus with the subject. . .if not we may as well put on our blinders go back to the hall and highlight our watchtowers. I see nothing wrong with a little speculaton and hypothesizing now that we are able to without the guilt trip of doing so. The name calling and intelligence knocking only shows the lack of compassion and understanding for what we have gone through, perhaps it even reflects a tad of hostility, immaturity and ignorance that may remain.

  I personally am a believer if my posts havenot given it away, but i am not blinded by the charlatans that tend to exagerate the gifts that we as humans were given.

  Pete A. Sanders, Jr. wrote a book based on his study at MIT [Michigan Institute of Technology]. It is a scientifically proven method for harnessing inborn psychic powers. Through his study of biomedical chemistry and brain science, he developed techniques along with his associates to locate and access at will the 4 psychic reception areas.

  There is knowledge that is being discovered through quantum physics which interrelates with theories in metaphysics that at one time were only speculated, now these have basis in science.

  CHUCK

  PS. his book is titled----- you are psychic!