max,.
i just read another thread where someone took a "shot" at you with the f__k word etc.. go hug your wife and remember what happens in october with your family.. you may meet 10 idiots on this board but i assure you, you will help save at least one life and another one's freedom.. hawk
Don't worry Maximus ain't goin nowhere.
He so into what he is doing he won't go until he's good and ready. Now he's never told me that, but I know because Maximus is a wise OLD FOX!
So don't anybody worry their pretty little heads he'll be back or I'll eat my hat.
He's playing a game with the WT and a very good one as far as I can see, from my very limited point of veiw.
I tip my hat to Maximus!
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
nicolaou,
It is so funny.
To me it looks life a wolf that is so happy where he is, that he's in ecstasy and is playing with his food before he eats it.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
first off i beleive in god's existance.. that being said, let me proceed.. there is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.. scholarly: compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.. pseudo-scholarly: makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.. .
so my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of god is an agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.. i admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that i feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because i'm not a scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me.
to me in my mind it works.. so then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?.
Jan,
I've gone to your sight and have used it for plenty of good information to help others. For your work I thank you.
You said:
Science do not have to suspend judgement on anything that there is no positive evidence for whatsoever, since science is always open to new evidence anyway.
I agree.
Currently evidence for a deity is zilch, evidence against pretty overwhelming, and then scientists who follow the evidence stick to the provisional conclusion that such a deity does not exist.
How do you know the evidence is near zilch? Are you falling into the camp of collecting only facts that appear to suport you veiw and not looking at the ones that go contrary.
DO you think that maybe you might be just a little prejudicial in your conclusions sometime, like us all, come on, arn't we all that way even if we try real hard not to be.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
Cool!!!
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
first off i beleive in god's existance.. that being said, let me proceed.. there is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.. scholarly: compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.. pseudo-scholarly: makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.. .
so my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of god is an agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.. i admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that i feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because i'm not a scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me.
to me in my mind it works.. so then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?.
SS,
It wasn't my purpose in starting this post to argue about God's existance, but to explore the fact that both sides have their weak points.
It is my beleif that a true Agnostic is much more likely to be so-called scholarly in his aproach and handleing of facts because he is not on a side.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
first off i beleive in god's existance.. that being said, let me proceed.. there is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.. scholarly: compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.. pseudo-scholarly: makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.. .
so my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of god is an agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.. i admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that i feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because i'm not a scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me.
to me in my mind it works.. so then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?.
Alan,
Thanks for your response.
In this quote:
That conclusion does not follow from the stated premises. The notions of "scholarly" and "pseudo-scholarly" apply both to people and to works. An extremely biased person demonstrably can produce a relatively unbiased, scholarly work. Someone who is generally objective can produce a horribly biased, pseudo-scholarly work. One who regularly produces one type of work or the other attaches the label to himself.
Just a couple of questions:
What are the stated premises?
So as you state that Scholar is just a label that one attaches to himself. I may have misunderstood you so please don't take me the wrong way.
So is it just a self applied label?
If that is the case then it explains my son-in-laws email to me.
DaveDon't send me anymore emails about JW. I am confident
and comfortable in my decisions, as I've told you
before. I've done years of scholarly research and
have come to much different conclusions than you have.Chris
He just got his doctorate and so that expains why he said the above.
I called him to task over this email and he kinda sorta apologized.
He knows the Society lies, he even said to me that the Soceity is not the FDS but that they just use Matt.25 for their own benifit. There are also many other things he mentioned to me that he knows Society does that are phony, so when he said he did scholarly research of the Bible and Society I didn't think he spoke the truth.
But if it's just a self applied label then he spoke the truth.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
goodbye folks,.
i have no parting sigh to give, so take my parting smile, - landon.
my little sabbatical is over and i plough back into the real world next week.
Hillary,
Your a genuine helpful person and I hope your back and I'm still in touch with the board when you do come back.
I like your posts.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
you know if you can find one prediction that came true that the society made i will mail you one dylan cd of your choice?.
i don't mean things like their prediction that the 2nd world war would end, because all wars eventually come to an end.. i mean something substancial.. .
i'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean i beleive it.
You Know,
You Know if You can find one prediction that came true that the Society made I will mail you one Dylan CD of your choice?
I don't mean things like their prediction that the 2nd World War would end, because all wars eventually come to an end.
I mean something substancial.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
all prophets: here is your chance to go on the record and tell us all what you think this special, jw-only meeting in sept is going to be about.
then, after the fact, when we know what it was about, you will get all the glory due a true prophet.
all those who were wrong, well, you will taunted and laughed at by the other prophets.
I predict they will give each invited JW a copy of the New Scolls mentioned in Revelation.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
perhaps you recall the instance in the bible where samson made a wager with the philistines that they couldnt guess his riddle.
as it turned out they wheedled the answer out of him by his fiancee, but the point is that they had a wager.
since the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that we are not living in the last days of this system of things, and that this world is not facing anything remotely like the biblical apocalypse, at least not any time soon, in the spirit of such antagonism, i would like to propose a similar wager.
lauralisa,
Good one.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
