Thanks Apognophos! That's is the very one I used.
Etude
Posts by Etude
-
36Topics not often discussed now
by jdubsnub inwhen i was a kid in the early 90's there always seemed to be a mention of how demons posessing people or how if you saw a demon or something supernatural occuring mearly calling jehovah's name would rid you of the situation.
rarely now a days do you hear anything of the sort.
that got me to thinking, what are some other topics the society has backed off of?
-
-
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
Tammy:
It took a little bit of searching to find at least one major example (there have been many more) were you use the same logic. I didn't want to dig up the minutia of what you say because much of it is tidious. But here's one example from a year ago:
"I can't imagine not believing in God"
The thread is replete with responses to your statements, including your repetition of the "truth is truth" phrase. That’s on page 27 of a 33-page long discussion. I would also recommend you read the very last page, to which you never commented.
-
-
-
Etude
I’m absolutely convinced of your sincerity and fervor. Your parallel about how we both fell for the scam of the WT is true; and, we have both changed dramatically since. Here’s where we differ: I decided not to let my emotions, and even further, my passion, desire and need to believe to be the pivotal factor in finding answers. I set on a path to discover what I could really know with any degree of certainty. I can tell you know that my quest led to more questions than answers. However, I think I (in many cases, reluctantly) reached some conclusions I’m willing to live with. I summarize my condition as one where I will often say “I don’t know” about many things rather than force an answer and admit to not knowing because there is no practical or logical way to know.
I realize your need to surrender to the idea of Christ and accept Him as your Savior. But that doesn’t make Him real any more than anything I can imagine and don’t have. It’s a very seductive thing, though unselfish and even spiritual. What I’ve found is that I receive similar benefits by appreciating the universe and its wonders; by nurturing my relationships; by being in awe at the realization of the complexity of life and the cosmos by looking at a cell or a galaxy. By telling you all of that, I’m stressing to you that what you have is not exclusive or simply the purview of believing in Christ or any other deity. I did not come willingly to this place. I arrived after an arduous trek and then noticed that it was good. More importantly, I realized that it was not the destination that was ultimately important. It was the journey or how I got here that made all the difference; having sincerely reasoned; having kept an open mind; having been challenged by others to rid myself of tradition, religious inculcation and belief-based separatism.
No one can deny you your feelings. But many can certainly demonstrate that aside from you, those feelings are not founded upon any real quantities. That is one of the fundamental questions I started asking even before I left the WTS. I thought about it because I had already experienced intense attachment to causes and had felt highly emotional about something greater than myself. I had to take a more sober and rational approach rather than be a victim to my loftiest desires and good intentions. It’s a good thing I never lost the fervor and intensity for anything and that still allows me to enjoy life with reasonable freedom.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
Tammy, sorry for the incorrect assumption (and thank you cofty). Nevertheless, you said you "studied" for a while with the witlesses. So, at least you're familiar with their m.o. After some time reading your posts, I have found that what you now have is not so different than theirs. The perfect example is your circularity in saying "Truth is truth".
"I simply mean that truth is truth... regardless of what you or I or anyone THINKS is truth; or regardless of who does or does not accept it."
On the face of it, that statement rings true. But in the same vein, bad is bad, boys will be boys and opinions will be like assholes. But, who gets to make that determination? I suppose we can say that each of us do. But not arbitrarily -- not if what is considered truth is going to remain true. This is why we have some tools in order to make that determination. Truth can only be that which is verifiable or confirmed. It is not what someone thinks it is in their head. It has to agree with reality or at least the common reality we all share. It has to make sense to us via logic. The verification of truth is founded on real knowledge and not on what we simply have come to believe.
So, if I say that there is no possible way to determine that there is a Supreme Being, the burden of proof to the contrary must be something I can, not just accept for the sake of belief, but accept because the evidence is undeniable. You can claim that "faith" is the key to believing. But faith, if there is such a thing and is real, must also meet the same burden of proof. That it sometimes works out and events and ideas seem to coincide does not make anything true. You have built an elaborate universe in your mind about what is and what is not. That's OK. But you must expect that lacking any evidence (even in the form of reasoning), others will challenge you and point out the flaws in your thinking.
I think that I've expressed the gist of what I was trying to say without referring back to specific examples in your narrative. While the rest of the conversation has drifted away from your original poser, the fundamental problem is that what you started to discuss is unfounded or untrue resulting in the commentary that was generated.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
“Agressively shoving atheism down people's throats is not going to stop one person from joining the Witnesses.”
I agree that there should always be civility in our discussions. Insults (unless warranted) tend to polarize people and deteriorate the conversation. But I object to your characterization that atheist try to shove Atheism down other’s throats. Yes, some do. But a lot of people like are simply trying to prevent theists from shoving religion down everyone else’s throats. It’s a reactionary response. Furthermore, those of us who a slightly more critical in thinking tend to object to untruths and ideas that are completely unsustainable. Those conditions give rise to situations where we just have to speak up.
I must admit that I’m curious about your particular brand of Xianity. I’m guessing that you interpret the Bible in a different way, different enough to reject the traditional ideas of Adam & Eve or perhaps other teachings that are well entrenched in tradition. You’re not alone. Many denominations have been doing the same picking and choosing for centuries. Still, whatever it is you believe, I fairly certain that whatever is at your foundation has flaws (the existence of Christ as stated in the Bible, for one). I also believe that in a logical discussion, it would become evident that there isn’t much you can prove with certainty about what you believe.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
Tammy: I take it that you were once one of the JWs. Did you believe that they had the “truth” then? Your statement “Truth is truth…” needs clarification. Is it the truth you believed as a JW or is it what you believe now? What is true about truth is that what makes it so is based on what can be verified. Regardless of the intensity of your feelings and those of mrhome and Perry, that does little to establish that what you all perceive is true. Even when we have sufficient evidence to support something as true, we have to keep an open mind because some other piece of evidence may come along and adjust that truth. We’ve been through this before (I mean specifically you and me). I’ve accepted that what you believe is real to you. But I’ve clearly established that what you believe is real cannot be supported outside of your own mind; that it can’t be assured to anyone that it is a part of reality.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
mrhhome (from your post #96)
You really take the cake! You completely ignore that the morality of an action (even if you separate it from the person) is totally subjective; that your own prejudices and predilections make you define for yourself and others what morality means. Well, I can see why you feel that anyone who is not a believer is immoral, or in your case in order to super-fine tune your belief, you think that believers act immorally. Does it stand to reason then that believers are always moral or (according to you) act morally? Check your history again and look around you to see how many pious-faced religious people are not only immoral but are bold-faced criminals.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
(I've been away for a while and then notice that the thread had been bumped)
Perry (from your 4090 post)
I’m unaware of the intimate details of Kirsen’s politics. But, I rather doubt your phrase: “Kirsen is a liberal democrat commentator on Fox News”. There is no such thing on FoxNews. I have listened to her and she has not given me any indication that she’s a liberal. One clue to this is the correlation in the article you cited about her being an ultra liberal and an atheist. The implication (especially at FoxNews) is that if you’re conservative, you tend to be religious (especially a Christian). Of course, I’m generalizing and not saying at all that there can’t be any atheist conservatives. But they would stand out like a baboon’s but in heat.
“Now he reveals himself privately once someone decides to believe. Do you blame him?”
Yes. As a matter of fact I do (as if I could when he’s not a real person). The fundamental problem is that whatever he did before is only here-say and unverifiable. Remarkably, it maintains consistency to this day. The people to whom he reveals himself have only their own mind to give testimony. Sorry, but I need more than that. It’s not that I’m arrogantly demanding anything from a supreme being. It’s that without some sort of verification, I can’t distinguish credulity from reality. I can’t determine if I’m deluding myself. I can’t be assured of what is real. I thought I had the answer once (maybe twice) and was greatly deceived. I’m not doing that again.
-
-
-
Etude
"Which god or God are you referring to?"
Huh? Your comment is a bit cryptic to me. So, you follow GOD, the head of all gods and the head of God. Is that right? I don't know what that means. But in answer to your question, just take your pick. I use the world God as a proper nown for a (the) supreme being responsible for the universe. That is more or less the accepted definition of the western concept of God. So, if you follow whatever it is you follow, somewhere in your definition, I think I've got you covered. If you look at reality with an unbiased eye, you'll find that there is no "good" or "evil" or "light" or "dark"; and I mean that in a moral sense and not a physical sense. But even in a physical sense, those things are a matter of degree from the absense of one thing to a full compliment of it. Really, things simple "are". What we ascribe them to be depends on circumstances. For example: Killing is not bad. God (the one from the Bible) ordered his people to kill with extreme prejudice to rid the land of non-followers. Killing in war is acceptable. Then, at other times, killing is not. But even then, it depends on who's doing the killing. If it's a Jeehadist blowing up dozens of people, it's not just OK. It's holy! There are times when even the best of us has trouble figuring out what is right and wrong. This often arises during trials by our peers where someone has broken a law (with moral implications). I know you feel fine, good water falling on you about now. But around here, I'm feeling nice and comfortably dry.
-
36
Topics not often discussed now
by jdubsnub inwhen i was a kid in the early 90's there always seemed to be a mention of how demons posessing people or how if you saw a demon or something supernatural occuring mearly calling jehovah's name would rid you of the situation.
rarely now a days do you hear anything of the sort.
that got me to thinking, what are some other topics the society has backed off of?
-
-
Etude
The article I remember was pre 1980s. It clearly mentioned oral sex. I remember thinking how "progressive" the opinion was because it mentioned how it was impossible from the language in the to determine what actual practices did or did not incorporate into porneia. Obviously, this didn't ring correctely to my pioneer friend, because he decided that the article didn't apply to what he was imposing on his bible study.