Posts by Etude

You're saying that somehow you have a way to validate your observations, in spite of the limitations of your (all our) senses. You say you do this because of experience (doing it for so long) and because you see it in others. But this is where you close yourself to ideas and arguments that can affect that perception. You're looking from the inside out at people and determining, using your own internal compass, that they are biased or they are wrong. They may be wrong and biased, but in order to make that determination, you have to explore their ideas (not yours) and then have supporting independent information for why they are wrong (not just your own set of data).

What I had detected in your arguments was a refusal to recognize the logic of what can and cannot be successfully argued. For example, you said: " I do not think that just because creationism cannot be disproved that it's true. I have said, I think serveral times now, that because it cannot be disproved it's not an illogical intellectual pursuit." In the first place, the first sentence confuses me because of the double negative condition ("I do not think that it cannot be disproved"), but I get you. I mentioned this before but let me do it again. From Terry's post:

You said: " what if we COULD know, but are being repelled by forces we don't know exist? " Really? Please think about that. Give it your best self-argument. In high school, we'd argue whether a rock was 'alive' or 'aware' -- By the fact that we cannot detect that a rock 'thinks' doesn't mean it doesn't think. So therefore, not being able to prove it doesn't think does not mean it doesn't think and means it could think and be alive."

I had hoped you understood the fallacy of that argument. What you're asserting to is that because we can't disprove something it means your point that it exists (because it's possible) is just as valid. What you fail to conclude correctly is the opposite: that not being able to prove the positive is just as valid and therefore the thing doesn't exists. What it means is that when it comes to conclusions, we don't have to have a binary state where it either is or it isn't. In logic, it's OK to conclude that we can't make a conclusion either way because either opposite conclusions are possible or because neither conclusion is possible.

So when you fail to understand that point, you are isolating yourself to your observations and rejecting anything else that would adjust your view.

" I established motivation for the search for God "

When I said that you're guilty of the same thing you accuse "classic" scientists by having a preconceived aim (motivation) in your exploration, you replied: "I established motivation for the search for God. If there are facts that disprove that a Creator is possible then there IS NO MOTIVATION ". What I specifically referred to was your claim that some scientists set out with an unproven belief and stop searching as soon as some results match their expectation.

Your reply to the "motivation" aspect doesn't make any sense at all. You set out on an intellectual exploration with a premise: "There is an intelligent creator" or "There is NO intelligent creator". The "facts" that either prove or disprove (according to you) directly apply to the notion of the premise you establish. How does that make motivation go away, prior to the examination of the facts? I think you're very motivated and have an intense need to justify your belief. More power to you. But, I think that understanding how someone else can have a completely different understanding from their own senses would go a long way towards examining your own perceptions.

" Why would I rein in my own valid research? "

I didn't mean to say you should stop seeking. What followed my suggestion to rein in your ideas was not intended for you to end pursuit your passion. What I meant is that if you're going to expose those ideas to others, it must be on an egalitarian plateau. You have to play by the same rules. Otherwise, you are free to live and think within your own realm. What I'm saying is that in the end, failing consider a prevailing set of ideas and reasoning besides what you have already determined is not very productive or conducive to new understanding.

As you can see, even though the discussion has given many of us an opportunity to exercise our brains, the experience was not very satisfying and even wearisome and contentious for many. That's why I recommended that what would help is to settle on a specific point and hammer it out. When making a statement of fact, always show a source or an example. Steer the conversation to stay on a specific point before going to the next. Otherwise, you're not going to get affirmation regarding what you think. That's OK. But then, you'll find that people are less and less willing to engage you. Isn't that what you're here for?

376

How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

it is disproven.

but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.

creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.

Etude

sabastious : My first attempt at answering your challenge (my post #241) seems to have gone by the way side. I was merely trying to show how futile your premise is by showing another equally futile but similar premise using the I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours scenario. So, I said to your "The universe was created by an intelligent being", " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. "

I tried to illustrate the principle involved in this argument on a different thread that Terry posted titled " Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?", to which you made a sizable contribution. So now, I felt compelled to read through this entire thread in order to gather as much information about what it is you really intend to establish with your premise.

You spoke of the "scientific method". Since it consists of "systematic observation", then your "vision" must be positively myopic. That is why the data you take in is flawed. Your observations (at least many of the ones you stated here) are not based on testable points. You may fail to understand that your our own "senses" can fool you and that is why you need to not make hasty assumptions or any assumptions at all when none are forthcoming. By your words, your scientific method goes like this:

"Systematic observation" - You listen to your senses telling you there must be an intelligent superior being, which senses are define by an intelligent superior being, namely God. So -- that you have senses must mean there is a God.

"Measurements" - You constantly measure phenomenon (each of all possible phenomena that you ever encounter and compare each to one, many or all possible phenomena that you ever encountered, the process of which (the comparison?) must be logical and consistent. If measurements change, so do your conclusions (even though you and you alone assume your process to be logical and consistent. Sounds like a job for IBM's Watson!

"Experiment, formulation, testing and hypothesis" - This explanation of yours is a rehashing of the previous explanations with the added "unclassic" scientific view you and you alone seem to posses, one contrary to the "classic" scientist who with the scientific method you seem to partially uphold will discover photosynthesis but not electromagnetism and the quantum field and who will stop asking question and testing results when his bias takes him to an expected conclusion.

You suggest that this bias is what hides information of the subject which the very critique by other scientists is trying to uncover via a peer review. And you figured all this out via your trained systematic powers of observation and your careful measurements of not only all of those scientific subjects but also via a thorough investigation of the peer review process.

OK. So if you're going to say to me that that's not how you judge everything but that you merely say that to suggest one possibility, I will agree that there exists such a possibility. But while and until you show some examples that establish a trend, you can't establish that argument as a premise for your next argument, namely that you must be right in whatever you say next because you've suggested a different way things can go.

By your very words: " my goal is to have spiritual ideas that are perfectly compatible with both Religion and Science" you have found yourself guilty of what you say some "classical" scientists do, looking to prove or disprove something and then stopping any further search when they find the answer that suits them. You have preconceptions that cloud your understanding of what others are trying to say to you here.

Earlier I wrote (on my post #241 to your premise "The universe was created by an intelligent being.": " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot." Your reply was: " An intelligent (self-aware) being capable of creating an explosion using Higgs-like quantum particles to create the existence you and I reside within."

OK. So, break down that answer for me, using the scientific method (yours if you like and not the "classic" one) and explain how your response constitute a reasonable answer. If you think that by this exercise we're straying off topic, then at least consider that the topic as you defined it involves many, many, pieces of data derived from "systematic observation", and yes, not just your observation. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: we must have the same common observation in order for all of us to reach the same or any conclusion.

I don't understand why you're hung up on the "Goddamn" particle. Since they sort of cleaned up the name, which was originally intended to ascribe to it its illusiveness, you might not feel or deduce the same if they called it the F*#@ing particle, 'cause it just is so damned stubborn.

You say: " It's not a mistake to make a claim and provide what one feels to be sufficient evidence for belief " Then, in the same post you say: " You are only appealing to the logic you presented in accordance with the evidence provided (which I have not provided ALL evidence I have) ". My systematic observations of many of your statements reveal a noticeable inconsistency in your position. You beg to establish a conclusion, the one about Einstein's religiosity and then tell us that you haven't provided all of the evidence for it.

You say: " The scientific method was not created by science, it was refined into the model it is today by scientists. " According to the article in Wikipedia, "The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself ." That is true not because it's in Wikipedia, but because there is evidence of the scientific influences that helped develop it. Then you say: " Many scientists claim that these [inexplicable] feats [from shamans] are frauds " without providing examples or for instances of those scientists to support your statements.

I know you've made your systematic observations and therefore feel free to make such a statement. But you must realize that the rest of us need to examine those observations (consider us your peer review) and test if they are correct or not. Some have been brought to light here, with which you seem to disagree. Well, you should pick one and let us hammer out what does or doesn't make sense about it. I'm sorry, but I don't see you very willing to do that.

You have built quite an edifice inside your head about the "world" and what really lies in it. I see a decided construct where God relates prominently in it. That is perfectly OK. If you must justify it, please understand that other people may not see it or reason it you your way. So, do the arguing for yourself and not for others. That only brings conflict when your world comes clashing with everyone else's (as I'm gathering from this discussion). It would seem that you have a strong sense of the spiritual and need to justify it. Many people just accept it and don't question it. Other can't help but challenge non-logical assumptions about our existence.

I must admit that one reason I kept on reading the thread was to see what picture EntirelyPossible was going to come up with next depicting pants on fire. I was cracking up. I hope you took the jest without insult. Since the subject was brought up about some personal condition you're experiencing, I would like to suggest that (in the most innocuous way and without any disrespect intended), that perhaps your condition is unduly influencing perception.

I also think that it is perfectly OK and that because of your condition your personality can actually result in a very unique individual with an exceptional point of view. But my observation is that you probably need to rein in that point of view because, in my opinion, it really is not representative of what others consider logical and reasonable. I'm not saying we need to put a chill on discourse. What I am saying is that if we're going to engage in discourse, we need to do it using the same set of rules. While you're kinda out-there, using your internal set of rules based on your personal observations, it may not be possible to reason with others on the same level.

Best wishes,

Etude.

376

How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

it is disproven.

but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.

creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.

Etude

The universe was created by an intelligent being.

I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that "an intelligent being" capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot.

46

Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?

by Terry in

belief is spackle.

you can't see the crack in your thinking when you exercise faith.

consequently, a person of faith can not, must not, will not allow others the option of non-binary references.. .

Etude

Wow! Everyone here provided a great exchange of opinions. However, it seems to me that the primary poles of discussion are sabastious & Terry. You both present compelling ideas, worthy in their own right.

Although I didn't initially like Terry's "spackle" analogy because, as you sabastious said: " there is no drywall ", I reconsidered and now think that the drywall is reality, and that faith, according to Terry, is what we use to spackle reality. When our drywall-reality continually shows unexplained holes, instead of admitting that we can't find the explanations (answers) for the holes (questions) and that they're going to keep popping up, we spackle them away by "trusting" (exercising faith) that an alternate explanation will make the drywall-reality significant and smooth again. At this point I'm stretching the analogy and not meaning to say that that's what Terry intended to say, in case he didn't. In addition, I believe there are different ways of defining faith, belief, hope, trust and love.

You noticed, sabastious, that I emphasized the word "trusting" above. This is because you used the term "trust" in terms of relationships or friendships. But it seems to me that you're putting what happens in trust out of sequence. We don't decide to trust someone before we know something about that person. While the process is gradual (the more you know about a person, the more you trust them), it seems to have a quid-pro-quo: somebody gives a little of themselves (warmth, private confidences, caring, etc) and we in turn afford more trust to the person.

If a person fails to return a borrowed item we trusted him or her with, what we tend to do is assess whether we will lend that person another thing again, even if we evaluate the number of reasons for their failure to return or replace the item. We can make the same decision if they acted out of simple neglect or because we interpret that they were greedy and never intended to return it in the first place. The level of trust is changed. Yes we trusted, but it was on the basis of social rules and the expectation of everyone's participation that when you borrow, you also return. That is the foundation of that kind of trust. If the item lent is of great value, there are also rules that allow you to take someone to court for compensation.

If I were to base my faith and trust in God, I wouldn't do it because the U.S. Dollar says so. I would do it for the same reasons I just explained. sabastious you said: " Human antiquity shows that God has tried many different approaches to gaining our trust, because trust is earned, that's how it works. " And herein lies the problem. I can look at history and see what you're saying as well as the human toll "God" has caused not only by his policies (some of the things he commanded in the Bible) but also by the atrocities those who put faith in him have committed. If those acts cancel each other out, then there's no compelling reason to trust or put faith in God. Instead, the basis used for trusting Him are arbitrary and at times contradictory. I don't feel right picking and choosing which one will spackle up the holes.

sabastious stated: " what if we COULD know, but are being repelled by forces we don't know exist? " Really? Please think about that. Give it your best self-argument. In high school, we'd argue whether a rock was "alive" or "aware" -- By the fact that we cannot detect that a rock "thinks" doesn't mean it doesn't think. So therefore, not being able to prove it doesn't think does not mean it doesn't think and means it could think and be alive -- Even though it feels like mental masturbation, there are elements of the argument that can lead us to a conclusion. After further reasoning, I concluded that although the remote possibility of a sentient rock exists, there is no experiment or information available to me to make that deduction and therefore I'm forced to assume (trust or have faith) that rocks are intellectually inert, not alive and not aware of anything. Do you see the foundation for that conclusion?

A similar situation uses the same argument in the rock example: "Prove to me that that invisible man is not there." It sounds like this famous quote:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Donald Rumsfeld while explaining the missing WMDs in Iraq.

As others have mentioned here, there are different ideas of what "faith" means. I make a distinction between faith and credulity. A credulous person believes in the face of lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. One dictionary definition of "faith" is "trust". Given my previous explanation of how trust is earned, it seems to me that faith is earned from some foundation while credulity is the spackle Terry is talking about. It seems to me that what makes me agree with Terry is that you both are talking about credulity and not the faith in the sense of "trust" based on some tangible foundation.

I tend to make a similar distinction between love and infatuation. Of course my distinction is subjective, depending on how you define them. But as the phrase goes, when people "learn to love one another", to me love involves the same elements needed for trust. I learned to love my wife, even though I was initially "infatuated" with her. Maybe it's that she was pretty or I was horny or both. But that was infatuation. Love is what I've learn after more than a decade of sex, arguments, joys and sorrows. Love, in this case, is NOT "not logical", as you sabastious put it. It's born out of our common experience and not out of a simple desire to experience it.

Earlier, I posted my definition of "faith" with a profound twist. Even though I find that we shall not have significant answers any time soon about the nature of matter and the foundation of the universe, the faith a scientist must exercise is based on the idea that the laws of Physics which have led us up to this present stage of knowledge have not failed us so far on most things. That they actually fail when we look at matter at the nanoscopic level lets us at least trust that there's another explanation we've yet come to find. In the mean time, it's OK to say "I don't know" and not be forced to assume that God must be there to make sense of it all or that we're decidedly in one of an infinite number of universes. While we're free to consider both of those possibilities, we need to refrain from attesting to one or another for the sake of our own mental or emotional security.

I think many of us also obfuscate belief with hope. Belief to me involves the acceptance of an idea, whether accurate or not. It involves our perception of reality, whether accurate or not. Hope is more nebulous. Hope projects our expectations to a reality that has yet to become. sabastious said: " Without belief we would never have discovered so much about reality. " The reality is that "reality" will happen whether we believe or not, whether we exist or not. I'm speaking of a reality that expands beyond ourselves and beyond what we can immediately perceive. So, our reality is no less real for those who have stopped "believing" because they are dead. There is no further discovery for them to make and "reality" (meaning the world as we perceive it and what we agree upon) continues on!

That reality must include the makeup of the physical world, the laws the govern the universe and the biology of man, and the archeological evidence about us we can uncover. No matter how significant the dead one's influence might have been on our "reality", it's easy to find examples of how they might have made profound influences in spite of their belief.

So, for me, credulity is the arbitrary and unfounded spackle on the drywall of reality. Faith (as well as trust) is an inconclusive but probable belief of or in something based on some previous act or related fact. Belief is what we hold to be true, whether it is true or not. Hope is simply what we wish would happen based on our true or false belief. Infatuation is when our gonads do our thinking and love (if you get it) is what we learn after we spend time with someone.

60

If you believe God exists, what are your thoughts on what pleases him most?

by Fernando in

our family has come to believe that god really wants each individual to personally and independently seek, find and walk with him - quite apart from what other humans say, think, believe or do.. we believe we were created as semi-autonomous beings.

when our inner compass is recalibrated, and we then self-direct, the outcomes seem best.. when we are instead led by humans, their hierarchies, organisations and ideas, the outcomes on the whole seem unfavourable.

legalism (rules), moralism (a moral code), ethnocentrism (doctrine), and gnosticism (knowledge) may seem meritorious.. yet these do not seem to lead to the deep inner transformation needed.

Etude

I saw this topic, especially the part that says: "If you believe God exits..." and I said to my self: "OK self, this is one you don't have to even look at, since you don't believe." But then I decided to take a peek and read some comments. You guys crack me up! Keep up the good work.

46

Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?

by Terry in

belief is spackle.

you can't see the crack in your thinking when you exercise faith.

consequently, a person of faith can not, must not, will not allow others the option of non-binary references.. .

Etude

Faith, whatever the hell it is, is what you must have when you can't explain the source of quantum equations, what explains the equations and why they fall apart when we try to explain the quantum realm.

Faith is what we lean on when we fail to satisfactorily answer the question why the universal constants (the strong and weak forces that hold particles together) are exactly what they must be in order for us to be here in the first place.

Faith is what you must rely upon in order to believe that there is an infinite number of universes with every possible combination of different quantum values so that we end up where we happen to find ourselves.

33

Thinking of changing my life/ long rant

by DATA-DOG in

jw
friends

i want to drastically change my life.

i am stagnating and will eventually drive my truck into an oncoming semi truck.

short of faking my death there are only so many things i can do.

Etude

DATA-DOG:

Yeah, I'm going to agree with everyone here about going back to school and how good that is. But also, let me add a few things.

1. Please realize the important distinction between being educated and having a degree. You can always be educated if you pursue and champion the things that you're really passionate about. Having a degree merely certifies that you have achieved and met requirements for certain level of training. But ultimately, the purpose of education is not to just to inform but to also teach you how to think. So, keep that close to your heart even after you register for college.

2. There are a lot of people with degrees that don't know their asses from their elbows. And yet, I have found that I've been passed over for many, many opportunities for being sheepskinless. If I were in your place, I would conclude that getting an education is very important for providing for my daughter. But, I don't know all your circumstances and can't really assess what kind of sacrifice that would be for you. Therefore, it's OK to do like OnTheWayOut said and concentrate your energies on seeing that you're daughter goes to college instead.

When I graduated from High School, I had the chance to go to a community college. I was also faced with the opportunity to "pioneer". Guess which stupid assed thing I chose? Not only that, after a year of it, I decided to go to Bethel (from the frying pan and into the fire). My dad, who was not a JW just let it happen; yes, let happen the conversion; yes, let happen the pioneering; yes, let happen the Bethel thing. If he had demanded that I go to college, I would have easily complied. Instead, he let it all happen.

Now, even after my 60th b'day, I'm still considering going back to school. To this day, I still don't know what I want to "do" and even though I went to college after I left Bethel (imagine that!), I have a hard time selecting a field of study. Maybe it's because I just like learning, period. But now, my interests have changed. It was because of college that I got into Mathematics and eventually in to I.T. and made a career. But now, I'm ambitious enough to think that I may study Law.

So lastly, I recommend that you find some financial help, or prove yourself to earn a scholarship, or join a college and seek financial help from the inside, even if you don't know what you want to do. There are a lot of pre-requisites that you will need to take no matter what your final field of study will be. Go. Do it now!

23

It's time I face the truth about my belief in God.

by Cagefighter in

i don't beleive in him, at least not like most christians do.

as some have described before the "sky daddy" version of god has not been able to be rationalized by cagefighter's brain for some time.. does this mean i don't believe in a divine power/entity?

does this mean i do not consider my self a christian?

Etude

Cagefighter:

1. I'm not trying to shake the ground you walk upon. I think that your choice of beliefs promotes and emanates from goodness. But perhaps you don't give yourself enough credit for you being the source of goodness, apart from God. And, I believe that the divine and creative forces your body and life experience generate would be there whether you believed in God or not. That you choose to believe in some form of God is a natural consequence of our inevitable sense of spirituality. You are correct, but I like to keep it in perspective.

2. While the teachings of Christ revolutionized the world, many of its components were not unknown to the world before or since Christ. There is a redeeming and egalitarian quality about what he preached or is attributed to him if he actually existed. Just remember that in the history of mankind, we can conceive that a lot of people thought and acted with those principles way before Christ showed up on the scene. Therefore, you can choose to materialize all your humanity in one person (Christ) or realize that even without that person, the feelings you project are just as significant valuable.

3. You're absolutely right, there is a lot of exaggeration as well as facts in the Bible. That's what, upon sincere analysis and apart from the importance some the major religions of this world place on it, I conclude that as point of reference and lore, it's quite ordinary. It's difficult to trust its sources and therefore much of the stories in it. They say the Babylonians were prone to exaggerate their history (as well as the Egyptians). Yet, the Code of Hammurabi produced by the Babylonians is a great example of principles that we still live by today, which were copied in the Bible. Therefore, while it can offer guidance, the Bible is by no means an arbitrary source for our lore and for our cultural heritage, although it should be noted. We have the power to shape our future and to control what influences it.

The reason I reply to your wonderful comments is to expose the possibility for other choices. I am a non-believer. Yet, I'm not cynical. I am critical of religious affirmations, but I'm not beyond recognizing the need to feel spiritual. I am highly suspect of "miracles", but I'm willing to concede, upon a thorough investigation, that I don't know enough to conclude either way.

I've heard that the Unitarian Church (perhaps the "Reformed" version of it) is even more liberal and receptive than the Methodist denomination. Perhaps that's because they don't have specific tenets about what and whom to worship, even though they appear to allow you to worship and believe as you may. You might want to consider them. I'm thinking about it myself while planning to remain a devout agnostic.

I often think about this sense of "other" we have that makes us look up and be in awe and feel connected to the universe and maybe even gives us a sense of hope. That seems to me to be an innate human attribute, which is often corrupted and misguided when religion comes into the picture. If think about centuries of isolated natives in the jungles of South America, I can conceive of at least one society with rules and guidelines (your "rails") that make sense within the content of their society. Sure, some people will point out that some cultures were head-hunters, etc. But anomalies like that are true in our very society in spite of "rails", like shooting a young girl for advocating school for females or killing a doctor because he performed an abortion. Since the word "civilized" has been applied to any of us humans, even though we've had many conceptual and technical advancements, we've changed very little. Instead, we just have more stuff.

37

Does This Happen to You? I Need Help :/

by DarioKehl in

hey guys.... i have a few important questions for everyone.

this applies to doubters, faders, inactive, dfed or seasoned apostates.

first, let me set it up:.

Etude

I found that, even before I left the bOrg but had moved away, when I was still in touch with some witless friends and family, people were already inventing things about me. They didn't say I was an apostate, but they said that I grew a beard and had become a "hippy". My older sister (still a witless) tried to find out who was spreading the rumors and stop it. She didn't get very far.

Eventually, I left and never looked back. I knew I couldn't control what they would say or think, but realized it didn't matter. If I had a choice again, I would try to keep a foot in, just to see what they're up to. I would have acted just as shocked as you did at the news of your "apostate" friends but would have wanted to learn more, like how she found this out and from whom. I would ask questions about it and place doubt in her mind. I would lie about a conversation I overheard from some other "brothers" or relatives of the apostate that place in doubt what she's obviously mindlessly repeating. I wouldn't let her get away with that shit.