irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
the_classicist:
You wrote: Now since God is totally unsensible, his existence or non-existence is completely meaningless as it is impossible to determine it to be so.
If you rewrote that to read, "Now if God is totally unsensible..." I would agree with your conclusion. However, as written you assume as fact a conclusion that has not been established by your argument, and then argue from no foundation at all.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
OldSoul
"There is no spoon" ceases to be a convincing or satisfying argument at a certain point. Yeah, we all know we could be part of someone's dream, or that the entire Universe could have JUST NOW been created, and our memories of the past with it. But we all know that for everyday porpoises, and even extraordinary dolphins, this is probably "a load of bollocks". Most people accept reality is rather nicely exemplified by a fast moving truck, and take pains to avoid stepping in front of such exemplifiers of reality as even thought it MIGHT be a dream et. al., they like the possibley illusory reality they think they are having in place of what is objectively agreed to be subjectively terminal.
I have no idea why this would be addressed to me. The only circumstance under which I mentioned anything remotely similar is in context of responding to whether someone believing their if no spoon is falsifiable. It is not, of course. Therefore, I may disbelieve and disagree with the person all I want, but unless I can falsify their belief it is not "delusion"—it is difference.
rem:
Spin it any way you like. Your definition is a falsifiable one, according to the definition of the language part you chose, as is your belief based on your falsifiable definition. That aside, LittleToe is correct that needlessly and improperly using charged language that carries widely understood negative connotations to the degree that "delusional" does is argumentative, disrespectful, and destructive to the acceptance of your arguments. If you want me to stick to facts as defined but refuse to do so yourself, we aren;t going to get very far and you are going to look silly.
the_classicist:
Your continuing assertion as to the nature of God is laughable given that you admit to (a) never having experienced God in any way, and (b) disbelieving in God's existence. Since you can't speak from personal experience as to the nature of God, by your own admission, and you asserted as fact something related to majority belief about the nature of God, my request for data supporting your assertion is entirely founded.
I suspect you have no data to support your statement as fact, but I always welcome being proven wrong. In case you are having trouble understanding which statement I take issue with:
Now since God is totally unsensible, his existence or non-existence is completely meaningless as it is impossible to determine it to be so.
If you don't believe in God, by what means did you arrive at a belief in an unsensible God? I do not believe God to be unsensible. I believe I have sensed God. I suspect LittleToe believes likewise. You stated earlier that the majority believe God is unsensible and proceeded to substantiate that statement with .... nothing at all. Where is you data supporting your statement of majority viewpoint? Until you posted that viewpoint I had never heard of it in my life, and I know a lot of people.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
did dragons and the phoenix really exist or were they just mythical creatures?
the dragon is of course, mentioned in revelation and is symbolic, but it's mentioned so often in other old writings, that i'm not sure if they just went extinct or what.
i was reading 1 clements earlier (written around 95 ce) and it specifically mentions the phoenix as living in arabia (below)
I have been interested in the recent advances in chemistry (recent in terms of ages) that leave open the possibility that glands secreting certain chemicals could even produce fire. I am not clear on how advanced we are in our ability to analyze glandular secretion from fossilized remains, but I think it would be really cool if such creatures as are widely described in the lore of "certain cultures" (Narkissos, ) actually existed.
Who knows how much there is we have not yet discovered? Maybe Phoenix was a gigantic relative of a butterfly .
Respectfully,
OldSoul
LOL @ I quit!
I wish I had Legolas' rolling on the floor smilie!!
thanks to lilycurly, i don't think i will be able to even nominally remain a witness for much longer.
the whole "fading" thing goes against the grain anyway.. i arrived here, as my first venture into ex-jw land, as a lurker.
within a few hours, i spotted two people i knew whoto my surprisehad not yet become ex-ex-jws but were still posting here.
Thank you all for your replies. I think this sort of post and these sorts of replies helps lurkers feel less abnormal about their valid questions and concerns.
((((Sherry)))) Hugs back!
((((ALL)))) We will make it through to the other end of the tunnel.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
defd,.
on page 146 of what does the bible really teach?, the opening sentence of paragraph 6 purports to represent one of the six criteria for determining the true religion.
it reads: "god's servants base their teachings on the bible.".
what_is_ur_point,
But i also no that in my grama's baptist bible that it shows that there are 144.000 and in every other religon it dont teach that...??? right?? how did i do??
Is the number 144,000 literal or figurative? Does it mean what the JWs say it means?
Actually, the JWs I have met cannot establish their beliefs by the NWT. They can establish many of them, but there are some very critical core doctrines that they cannot support by using the NWT.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.
several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.
so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?
Joseph,
In my opinion, absorbing Paul's writings as a whole should inform one's view of particular verses that seem to conflict with the body. The case discussed in this thread is, in my opinion (sixofnine ), a perfect example. How can a writer who is consistently drumming up the concept of all Christians being equal, regardless of gender or status, be suddenly regarded as an authoritarianist?
I give as Witness the purported understanding Paul had regarding slavery. Philemon 15 and 16 informs my view of 1 Corinthians. Paul seems to recognize the legal status of Onesimus as subordinate to Philemon, but he stresses the spiritual status of equality throughout the letter. The same is true of his views expressed regarding women. He acknowledges the existence of the fleshly pecking order (for want of a better term), but stresses the spiritual equality.
Just my two cents, I agree with you.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
did you k_ow that 1 of the gover _ody's left the org he co_verted to lds........sorry my _utt_es are _ot worki_g propley
OOooh! HANGMAN!!!
I just LOVE hangman!!! Okay, okay...."R!!"
Seriously, when I first deciphered(ish) the first post in this thread I thought it was going to be a joke: Hey, didjya hear the one about the Governing Body member who became a Mormon? He had gotten into one Governing Body and he wanted to try for two! (ba-dump---pshhh!)
Maybe our new(ish) Mormon friend doesn't know that we know when a member of the Govening Body leaves.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
yes, i am stuck in this game again.
i can't go on until i find the name of this character.
http://www.simplecodeworks.com/mazito-2/lobster/index.html
Caesar Shift key is 19.
Answer to question takes you to cartoon that became Mickey Mouse.
Then to world's largest volcano. Going to bed for tonight. Happy hunting!
OldSoul
irrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
Cygnus:
You're welcome to your belief. I disagree with you. And ultimately, if you are right, I don't care what I come back as.
Now, take that same approach and apply to my beliefs. I am not proselytizing here. You don't have to agree with me. And if you don't, you won't even come back as a porcupine next Friday (didn't you know, I am a Fridayist).
Respectfully,
OldSoul
