Pistoff,
My mistake!
as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
Pistoff,
My mistake!
this is a dangerouse thread.
i dont want to damage the reputation of great people, unless there is evidence to refute " who they claim to be".. so how about a list of " great" people that may be imposters.. one:-elie wiesel: the most famouse holocaust survivor.
nobel peace prize winner amoung his thosands of humanitarian awards.
I had my doubts anyway but seeing as the website describes the holocaust as 'the holocaust' it makes me doubt anything else on the site.
this is a dangerouse thread.
i dont want to damage the reputation of great people, unless there is evidence to refute " who they claim to be".. so how about a list of " great" people that may be imposters.. one:-elie wiesel: the most famouse holocaust survivor.
nobel peace prize winner amoung his thosands of humanitarian awards.
Your link doesn't work btw.
as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
but the study of evolution has been done to death, the topic belongs to pointy headed intellectuals.
So, you think the word intellectual is an insult! hilarious.
this is a dangerouse thread.
i dont want to damage the reputation of great people, unless there is evidence to refute " who they claim to be".. so how about a list of " great" people that may be imposters.. one:-elie wiesel: the most famouse holocaust survivor.
nobel peace prize winner amoung his thosands of humanitarian awards.
Thanks to this thread I have been reading about Elie Wiesel, a very interesting man. I can't say I know enough to discredit the OP but it seems pretty unlikely that OP is correct. Show us the tattoo seems like the same sort of moving goalpost as show us the birth certificate
as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
You have made a wrong assumption about my beliefs. I don't believe in ghosts.
You clearly haven't read my post, I didn't accuse you of believing in ghosts, I said the supernatural.
You don't know what concrete and abstract thinking is. Changing your mind does not mean you're an abstract thinker.
I didn't say I was an abstract thinker, I clearly said that you would presumably call me a concrete thinker. I was pointing out that your loaded language was no different from the intellectual bullying you accused others of. I was also pointing out that your 'concrete' thinker is a lot more flexible in their thinking than what you describe as an abstract thinker.
I am afraid you're mistaken about a lot of things in my post and sadly I did not post clearly enough to help you see my perspective.
I can see your perspective, I just disagree with it. Feel free to point out where I am mistaken, us childish 'concrete' thinkers like to have things spelt out.
Abstract thinking is a skill that adults develop.
Another ad hominen attack on those who disagree with you.
It's the ability to read between the lines with out all the evidence.
Why on earth would you want to believe things without evidence, believing things without evidence makes a person foolish and gullible.
The ability to have dicernment about a particular situation or topic and draw conclusions based on limited information.
We all have limited information, nobody here is suggesting that we have all the answers except for the likes of Perry.
Concrete thinking is black and white thinking. Only drawing conclusions if you can see them. The world is not black and white, showing understanding for a variety of people and situations requires abstract thinking, we can't always see everything, so we need the ability to read between the lines and teach our children to do the same.
Another ad hominen to suggest that those who disagree with you lack understanding for other people. The world isn't black and white, that doesn't mean anyone has to believe in things without evidence.
When I say there is no such thing as the supernatural that is reading between the lines, that complete lack of empirical evidence is a big enough smoking gun to read between the lines and say there is no such thing as the supernatural.
as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
Concrete thinkers however, which all JWs are, and some continue to be once they wake up, need to have defined bounderies for their beliefs. Concrete thinking is very childlike and does not give a person the balance that is required as an adult.
Having concrete beliefs about God, evolution and spirits is not essential for happiness. Having concrete views on these things can cause many to push their views on others using teqniques such as intellectual bullying. This is a childish and unhealthy way to communicate.
Katewild,
I should point out that I probably count as one of those 'concrete' thinkers to you. Personally I don't think it is 'concrete' to follow empirical evidence, if the evidence shows that I am wrong I am happy to adjust my view. I think it is far more 'concrete' to doggedly cling to a belief in the supernatural despite a complete lack of empirical evidence.
My main point regarding your quoted posts was the inconsistancy however, you claim that people who disagree with your worldview are 'concrete' thinkers and are thus childish and lack the skills to be an adult. Your next post you whine about intellectual bullying after a whole post in which you make an ad hominen attack on those who disagree with you. The reason it feels like intellectual bullying is because intellectually you know full well that believing things without empirical evidence is foolish.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.
I predict Perry wont come within a mile of this thread, always happy for Perry to prove me wrong though!
as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
I find it funny that the more superstitious the environment the more likely people are to 'experience' supernatural events. As people become more rational and skeptical the less likely it is that these things happen.
I was riding home one very dark evening and could see a number of shining eyes floating in the distance. Once I got closer I could see a dark bank that was impossible to see until you got close, there was no sign of the eyes but there were some foxes running away. Someone who was predisposed to believe in ghosties might have had a more colourful version of the story.
hey guys.
there has been a ton of illuminati hollywood mind control pre-programming about this virus outbreak before it actually happened.
conspiracy people of the world... unite.. .
Talesin,
LOL, I get a bit panicked when the scientific folks on the board have severe reactions to relatively harmless, conspiracty-theory threads.
Hey, how's the blood pressure doing? Are you calmed down now?
I would say that it is difficult to really work out the emotion of the person writing the post.
As Cofty rightly points out though conspiracy theory is not harmless, it is a poison, much like creationism. It stifles sensible discourse and I see no reason why it shouldn't be challenged as rigorously as possible. The problem is that conspiracy theorists don't like to actually talk about facts because as this thread shows as soon as they are proven wrong they run for cover. Usually that cover is just more conspiracy theory, they never engage in discussion they just want to preach.
Some of us like playing whack-a-gopher though!
You can see the results of letting this sort of thing run rampant, just look at American politics. American politics is so dominated by stupid conspiracy theories to the point that actual scientific advice is drowned out. Uk politics is going the same way with the rise of UKIP and that gurning buffoon Farage.