Spook

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 746 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Spook

• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  To Flying High Now: That an agent is the source of an action does not entail that the action was a "choice." Neither does the appearance of "choice" entail "free will" - whatever that means. Please tell me what "free will" is free from. Please contrast this with a sort of will which was not free from whatever it is that free will is free from.

  The only other thing I'll bite at so far here is middleman's rejection of (some?) dating methods. I performed these calculations in nuclear physics class during my undergrad may be tempted to address his criticisms at inexhaustable, patient and crushing length if he will entertain a detailed response to the following questions:

  1. Of the available dating methods, which do you reject and why? Which do you accept and why? What is the difference?

  2. Are the assumptions behind the methodology flawed philosophically in your opinion, or is it the laboratory methods which you reject? If the assumptions are bad, what is one assumption which has more support than those which are the actual assumptions of the experiments?

  3. If extended to other forms of knowledge about the past, do your criticisms levied against these dating methods exceed or fall short of the standard of evidence you expect in order to infer knowledge about the past?

  4. Of the specific conclusions based on dating methods which you reject, please identify which of the rejected methods from (1) above was used to arrive at the conclusions of the research.

  5. Absolute dating not withstanding, please discuss the general law of superposition and its implications for relative dating.

  I will absolutely not accept the burden of proof on dating methods. These are exhaustively established and are freely in the public domain.

  The truth on the question of god from reason is as follows:

  A. Theists who have personal reasons to believe in god can possibly be rationally justified in rejecting arguments against their positions.

  B. No theistic argument merits the rejection of naturalism in favor of theism for those who have not had personal experiences to the contrary.

  C. Naturalism can account for theistic belief better than most theisms can account for non-belief in God.

  There is not a sound argument for the existance of God. There are only sound defenses of continuing previously existing theistic beliefs. There are no logical arguments which can prove a god does not exist, there are only arguments which lead one to conclude that a given God probably does not exist or else that the existance of a particular God is logically incompatible with her characteristics.
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Yikes and double yikes. Now we've added the notion of "free will" to the mix. I deny that anyone has "free will" depending on how it is defined. I also assert that it is logically impossible for a being to exist which has omniscience, omnipotence and "free will."
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Thx LWT - I may not get my hopes up too much. The OP contains so many claims that a meaningful discussion may be quite impossible.
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Oh yikes. Dare I jump on this one. Seriously...I wish the OP could have contained one of these not all...

  Big bang

  Premise one and two are nonsensical. The conclusion does not follow from the argument in any way and in fact contradicts it in furhter meaningless words.

  Moral argument

  Premise one is false and the conclusion in no way follows from it.

  Argument From Reason

  Repperts version is much better than Lewis' here botched. Premise 1 is false, premise 2 uses "explanation" improperly. Premise 3 sets up a strawman against several versions of naturalism and also excludes other possibilities. This also has the same problems of causation the Big Bang argument did.

  Argument From Design

  This no longer deserves comment.

  Argument From Need

  Possibly the worst argument I have ever heard. Most theists would reject the phsyical god claim analogy anyway.

  The Argument for God from Evil - This is a poorly worded version of your moral argument.

  The only argument worth mentioning presented above is the Argument From Reason. This has been patiently and thoroughly dealt with. Now Plantinga Vs. Denett had an obscure little version of this at the recent APA conference which I posted about previously. It dealt with the likelihood that reason should approximate truth under natural evolution vs whether this was more likely given the set of evolution and theism.

  I can account for reason under naturalism just fine. I think it's the best argument made by theists because it does force a non-sophisticated naturalist to make certain unpleasant admissions much the same way the argument from evil forces theists to admit that were God to exist it is his purpose that some humans experience a maximum amount of suffering.
• 
  7

  Talked to a Servant about.false prophecies...answer = My house is always full of Brothers?!

  by Witness 007 in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  spoke to a close minsterial servant friend a year ago about why i did not attend the convention...told him about the blood hypocracy..we are disfellowshiped for donating but can freely use many litres to amke "fractions"....the false prophecies 1914, 1918, 1925,1975, the generation" ...showed him russells pyramid and bethsarim, his answer....."look i don't worry about those things too much, my house is always full of brothers and sisters"..........my response .

  i went to his cong 6 months ago and my "friend" for 15 years snubbed me....gave me a dirty lool at did not speak to me, and his wife went home early to avoid me...nice!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I think it's very reasonable for some people to not want to leave based on the truth-value of the beliefs alone.

  There is an economics / decision making problem called the "shopping cart dilemma" or some such.

  In a shopping checkout queue you make a choice about the line you will be in based on an asessment of current and past data. You chose the line you think may be the fastest, easiest or best. But if it turns out your line is not the fastest, you are usually better off staying in the same line rather than trying another line.

  By analogy, plenty of people still think they are "better off" staying and avoiding thinking too hard about the problems of the religion. I'm pretty clear that my life circumstances permitted me to leave and be better off for it. I struggled with doctrines for years but sat on them.

  I think a great way to get people out is to screw with the social dynamics. Get your family into a situation where they could be obviously better off by leaving. Encourage the kids to have worldly friends and opportunities.
• 
  24

  Word on the street is that Facebook is going to be banned...

  by middleman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ...at the next assembly.

  i've heard from various sorces that the gb are planning on making it off limits, like they have already done for myspace.

  has anyone else heard this?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Either way - the more "normal" things which get arbitrarily banned the more sand will slip through the GB's fingers until they are left cluthching dottards, psychopaths and fools.
• 
  17

  Honors classes "puff you up with pride"

  by rebel8 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in us public schools, they used to have special classes for gifted students.

  all students would be tested for academic achievement and iq, then placed in "gifted classes" with parental permission.. in my kingkongregation, parents would not give permission because it would make the children arrogant and later leave the trooftm.

  it would also mean more time studying worldlytm subjects than necessary.. and if the student is female, oh hell no, she wasn't getting into the gifted courses, no way, no how!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Always, always always hated the criticism of intelligence. As an atheist right now, I don't even understand what "pride" as a vice is. I think it's almost meaningless. One can have a hystrionic character disorder, but in general I don't believe self esteem is as problematic as rationality.

  This is a way to cause people to under-rate their own thinking and subject themselves to the bad ideas of other humans. Never trust those who ask you to quell your disagreement on principle.
• 
  20

  If you were offered the position to run the Watchtower....

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what would you do?.

  bts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  I would profit for myself and gradually mainstream the church over a period of 20 years.
• 
  26

  From the WBTS website "Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!"

  by middleman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  read the first paragraph (below)....wow how/why do they write this stuff?.

  "there is a differencea big differencebetween education and propaganda.

  education shows you how to think.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  Yes yes yes. The self-reflective article is preposterous and skirts their own definition.

  In reality, to not be propagandistic requires a great degree of patience or disclosure. So the only way JW's could not be propagandistic is by

  - publishing articles as the opinions of the individual authors

  - taking an academic interest in issues and stating things in proportion to the level of confidence.

  They are neither willing nor able (because they are not well educated enough to do the later) to do this. I'd love to hear a talk about "how to think." Here's how you think critically:

  - do the claims about reality match data available in the real world?

  - are the claims themselves internally consistent?

  - what other information, were it true, would contradict or falsify the original claims? Does such information exist?

  - if the claims were true, what other claims about reality must be declared false because of contradiction? Do those claims have more evidence? Have you thoroughly investigated them before dismissal?

  JW's will never say another great way to learn: TRY TO PROVE SOMETHING FALSE!!!!
• 
  40

  Is the Kingdom Hall a good place for ugly guys to get pretty girls?

  by donny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  about two weeks ago i was having lunch at an establishment that has tables set up on the outside (actually a sidewalk) and as i was waiting for my order, i overheard two guys talking at the next table.

  a homely guy who had a pretty girl on his arm brought this response.

  "wow man, look at that!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Spook

  To John Doe, I have to say the OP is a bit unique to the WT. Your four qualities

  1. intelligence
  2. mutual interests
  3. mutual world views
  4. just enjoying each others company

  I think an intelligent JW would either be one who is (a) leaving (b) hiding their beliefs about the fallacy or (c) twisted into elaborate justifications of the JW beliefs. Mutual interests can often be minimized for dubs, since the band of "acceptable" personal interests is very narrow. Certain music - certain movies - certain books...

  World views is obvious for them.

  Enjoying company...hard to test too much since technically they are not supposed to be alone together when they aren't married.

  In the real world, these all do come into play. People vary considerably in who they choose to have relationships with and what qualities are important. But I'd have to say the evidence seems to indicate most of this is not an active "choice" but something more basic, genetic, or early childhood development - for better or for worse.

  I would also point out that many of the hotties left the org young because they had better options. The same applied for many other factors, too.