Caedes

Joined

• started 57 topics
• posted 2,254 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Caedes

• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  >We don't agree on anything.
  
  
  
  
  
  Rex

  Yeah we noticed, the middle east may never be the same.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Um, Caedes, I allow for even sharp disagreement within the paradigmatic constraints. Why do you think so many skeptics bash [LittleToe's] beliefs in the same way, although they've never met? That was FunkyDerek's question I was attempting to answer...if you disgree that his question has merit, don't put me in the middle . Especially if you think it might be dangerous .

  Never witnessed a skeptic's catfight before. Should prove interesting. I await the outcome with bated breath. Now, combatants, to your corners. Keep it clean and come out swinging!

  I was making a lighthearted comment but if you insist, I am skeptical of most things really but I see little wrong with a belief system if it provides a structure to someones life or moral system that they might not otherwise have had. Is it delusional? who's to say that is any more delusional than any other belief system? There is in my opinion no more evidence for god than there is for unicorns, but that in no way disproves the idea it merely means there is no evidence to back the idea. I would agree that my feeling that there is no god is a belief and is as open to debate and argument as any other belief system.

  As to why skeptics bash a belief system I suppose for the same reason some believers feel the need to preach about their beliefs, from a skeptical point of view believing in god is the same as believing in fairys and unicorns in much the same way a believer's point of view would paint a skeptic as leading a hollow life without direction or hope. Both are strong emotive responses to what is perceived as "wrong thinking" So there is no merit in either the original question or the answer since both are an argumentum ad populum(since both make the case that lots of people believe in their respective viewpoints) Let's face it though, whatever you believe (or know come to that) you should be prepared to be able to argue your case logically and consistantly if you really believe it.

  Personally I think most people probably are deluded (on both sides of the fence) as a result of modern day life but we can only live our lives based on our experiences so it doesn't matter if we are deluded and the world was created last thursday. I will still carry on living as if my experiences are real since it is the only thing I can do. I am sure that to a believer the supernatural things they experience are real, unfortunately when those experiences are subject to an objective study they tend to vanish.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  They may have never met in person, but there is unqeustionably a meeting of the minds among them. The source of this Group Think is filtering every experience and account through the Scientific Method, which is self-limited to exploration of physical reality. Therefore, the opinions such persons would have of anything that falls outside their paradigm would obviously be similar and their arguments against would all derive from the box they have put their thoughts in.

  skeptics? agree? don't make me laugh. We don't agree on anything.
• 
  16

  What would you put in Room 101?

  by PaulJ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those of you that do not know what this is- room 101 is a place where you can bannish forever all the things that really annoy you.

  the only requisite is that you have to justify why you want to put that 'thing' in room 101.

  (if anyone can explain it better, please go ahead!).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  business meetings

  having to spend two hours listening to somebody's brain farts is just not right.
• 
  369

  Why naturalism is irrational

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  irrational naturalism (#201) .

  by henry morris, ph.d. .

  abstract .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Spot on! That is exactly what I have been arguing. You said in one paragraph something that has taken me three pages worth of posts to fail to communicate. Now I am embarrassed . I suspect English is not your first language, which makes my inability to communicate that even more depressing . Go ahead, verify my suspicion, I can take it .

  Old soul I understood the point you were making if it's any consolation.

  Now I've got some fish to deliver to my local KH
• 
  239

  Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

  by VM44 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

  all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

  the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Our Bible based chronology withstands all such criticism because it is simple

  No argument from me on that one!
• 
  8

  What's next Watchtower gonna sue Ebay ???

  by run dont walk in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i find it funny and sad that the watchtower is pursuing internet sites to be shut down and to stop showing their articles, due to copyright laws.. i thought the goal of the watchtower was to preach the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth and then the end will come.. apparentll not, with the recent lawsuit against the quotes site, i'm wondering if ebay is on their list, you can buy just about any publication from 1900-1950, and buy it fairly cheap i might add.

  hhhhhhhhhmmmmm, maybe they will sue them to for distributing old publications for people to read.. what's next ????????.

  any thoughts .........

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  I should imagine we will see more of this kind of thing as numbers start to dwindle, clutching at straws and all that.
• 
  163

  The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

  by jgnat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

  "the bible is factual.

  " i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  1) I draw from scripture, viz. "In the beginning..." Genesis 1.1 and "In the beginning the Word" John 1.1.
  
  2) Similiar scripture that applies (without getting down to specifics).
  
  3) Attributes necessary for the concept of an Almighty God as described Biblically.
  
  >It seems others in their posts have taken great care, choosing their words carefully, backing up their ideas with sound well rounded reasoning. Can I ask, is this, your quote (which is written as a statement of fact) a conclusion you've drawn yourself? Is it something you've read somewhere? I can't understand how you can be so unequivocal?
  
  It is my conclusion. I might add though, you seem to know the lingo around here and I do hope you are not a troll (someone already here who has a screen name).

  1) Doesn't answer a direct question, quotes two biblical passages well known to probably 99.9% of the posters here - how helpful.

  2) Can't answer the question, Shining one, perhaps you could have asked mash to rephrase the question if you didn't understand it. If you did understand it then please have a go at being specific, there's a first time for everything.

  3) Stuff i've made up because it suits me.

  4) Finally half an answer, well alright quarter of an answer and a poor attempt at sarcasm.
• 
  39

  Have you picked a funeral song????

  by Es in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i know this is a gloomy topic but have any of you picked a song that you would liked played at your funeral.. i want james blunts new song "goodbye my lover" i heard it for the first time yesterday and cried never had that happend before.

  es

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  There is just so many to choose from,

  Seriously - The Chills - the great escape or Godspeed you! black emperor - east hastings

  Not so seriously - I like chinese - Monty python team
• 
  7

  You know your crazy, when you quote the Simpsons! but ...

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i work for a large corporation and if anyone else does, then they might understand what i am saying .... .

  in the simpson series, there was an episode where bart and lisa are taken away from homer and marge and put into foster care with ned.

  ned is so perfect, it drives homer nuts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Yeah nothing worse than an uppity surbordinate, apart from a competent uppity surbordinate.

  Mr. Burns: I suggest you leave immediately.
  Homer: Or what? You'll release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?