Posts by funkyderek

97

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

by nicolaou in

it's obvious right?

your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.

funkyderek

snowbird:

Of course I don't believe that! Don't be ridiculous. Facetiousness is not becoming to you, FunkyD.

But why not? Millions of Hindus believe it. It's no less plausible than the loaves and fishes story that you do believe. If you had ever believed it in the past, would you have found a reason to discard it?

And I'm not being facetious here. Your beliefs are genuinely no less ridiculous than that belief. The only reason you believe in the loaves and fishes story and not in the army of monkeys story is that you were born in the United States and not in India. That is not a good reason for believing or not believing something.

97

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

by nicolaou in

it's obvious right?

your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.

funkyderek

snowbird:

Faith follows the thing heard.

But surely it doesn't immediately follow it? Aren't you missing a step, or do you just believe everything you hear?

The credentials of the One who made everything possible are written in a Book that all can read and decide for themselves to accept or reject.

But on what basis should we decide? Again, do you really think people should just read the Bible and immediately accept it? Or should there be some steps in between? What should those steps be? What if someone gave me tha Bhagavad Gita to read instead of the Bible?

You know, I read in a college biology textbook once about the universal dreams we humans have of falling and the terror that accompanies those dreams.

The author stated that it is her belief that this is a carryover from the time when our ancestors lived in trees! This fear comes from their being jerked rudely awake when they were about to lose their grip and fall out of the tree.

That seems reasonable. I think it refers mostly to that scary falling feeling we get that makes us wake suddenly rather than actual dreams of falling, though.

I thought to myself, could this come from the first couple's fear and terror after they lost God's favor and were driven from the Garden? Were they so deeply scarred by this experience they they passed these primal emotions on to their offspring?

I didn't say anything at the time because I was sure I would have been ridiculed.

Yes, you would have been and rightly so. While the author's hypothesis was unproven and perhaps unprovable, at least it was plausible given what we know of human ancestry. Yours was based on a myth, and even then it seems like a complete non sequitur, the only link at all being a tree.

Now, it doesn't matter.

Glad you don't mind because, when you promulgate ridiculous ideas, as you tend to do, you will likely be ridiculed.

Ideas are meant to be shared, debated, and if found to be untenable, discarded.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. If only you actually behaved as if you believed that!

I have yet to find a reason to discard my belief in the Holy Scriptures.

That can't possibly be true. You believe that humans have only been around for 6,000 years when there is ample evidence that they have been around for closer to 100,000. You believe that humans were created directly when there is overwhelming evidence that we evolved from apelike ancestors. You believe there was a global flood around 4,000 years ago when it is quite simply impossible for that to have happened. And so on. Your beliefs were only ever based on myths to begin with and you cling to them even though they have long since become untenable. Don't pretend that you're just waiting for a reason. You've seen reason, and you've rejected it.

97

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

by nicolaou in

it's obvious right?

your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.

funkyderek

BurnTheShips:

I think belief in God is also reasonable.

But that's not what this thread is about. It's about things like believing without evidence that somebody magically turned a small amount of food into a much larger amount of food. Even snowbird admits it's unreasonable, the issue is why people believe such unreasonable things.

97

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

by nicolaou in

it's obvious right?

your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.

funkyderek

snowbird:

I believe.

Hmmmm.

Is there anything fantastically unlikely that you don't believe then? For example, do you believe that Ram Setu (a bridge between India and Sri Lanka) was built by Lord Ram and his army of monkeys? If not, why not?

97

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

by nicolaou in

it's obvious right?

your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.

funkyderek

snowbird:

If you can accept the fact that you came from something smaller than the question mark at the end of this sentence, why can't you accept the fact that some things, from our standpoint, are simply inexplicable?

Because that fact is something we have discovered by virtue of not accepting that things are inexplicable, but through examining and hypothesising and testing and probing. As a result we know not just in broad principle but in exquisite detail where babies come from. By not just accepting "stork theory" or "cabbage patch theory" our lives are enriched and the sum total of knowledge has increased. This approach is the exact opposite of what you seem to advocate.

The example you cited of Jesus' multiplying the loaves and fish was a miracle - neither you nor I can explain it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't and didn't happen.

True, but that's not the place to start. The first question to ask is: Did it happen? Well, did it? Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Maybe it was completely made up, maybe it was an exaggeration, maybe it was a case of human generosity, and maybe it was a bona fide miracle. Is there any way to know? Why do you automatically take what seems to be the least likely explanation possible?

I believe it happened. My convictions are that as Creator, Jesus could overwrite, as it were, the creative process. What seems like the end to us may be only the beginning for Him.

Bu why do you believe that? Certainly not because there's any evidence that it happened. In fact, why do you believe that this Jesus character not only existed but created the universe? Again, not because there's any evidence for it. This is where you usually play the "faith" card but what is faith other than believing something for no reason? To me, it seems like a lazy copout. You've picked your beliefs, and when it's pointed out that the events you believe happened are impossible and have no evidence to support them, you merely claim that nobody can prove they didn't happen and that there's a special kind of magic involved that allows impossible things to happen. Do you at least see why some of us have difficulty accepting that?

Compared to creating a universe, what's multiplying a few loaves and fish?

Not a lot. In fact, it's such a trivial parlour trick that it's hard to imagine that a being who created a quadrillion solar systems even bothered to do it.

No, I haven't abandoned my reasoning abilities. I just know where to draw the line.

Of course. You couldn't function if you completely abandoned reason. You'd quickly starve to death or get hit by a bus. What many of us find fascinating is why a normally rational person is happily and defiantly irrational when it comes to the big questions. You'd check the identity of someone who came to read your meter but when it comes to who made the universe you're happy just to believe the first thing you were told.

9

Having no natural affection

by Lady Lee in

jw
friends

so what is this "natural affection" thing?.

humans are supposed to have it.

there is some debate about whether animals have it or we are just projecting our frame of reference onto the animal.. i think some animals have it.

funkyderek

Lady Lee:

So is this some form of "natural affection" with these wild animals? It might be instinctive. But these animals have something.

Yes it's natural affection, and yes it's instinctive. Many animals including humans have a strong emotional connection to their offspring, as those offspring need a considerable amount of parental care. Among such animals, those who do not care for their young are unlikely to have grandchildren, and therefore any genes that tend to cause indifference towards their young die out very quickly. On the other hand, genes that promote parental care are likely to flourish.

This, of course, is not true of all animals. Many animals produce thousands of offspring who are immediately left to fend for themselves. This strategy also works well, but which strategy is employed depends on the type of animal, the availability of resources, the level of cultural transmission and so on. As a general rule-of-thumb, the larger the brain (or at least the brain-to-body ration) the more time and effort will be expended on rearing the young.

21

gay-parship adverts

by The Nothing Man in

jw
friends

i consider them inappropiate, won't do anything for current witnesses curious about the truth about the truth if they see gay dating adverts on this site; it will just strengnthen their resolve that apostates are bad.

.

i don't visit here much, and i know this point will be contested, what with so many 'open minded' people on here, but i think it dents our operation in helping people see the truth.

funkyderek

The Nothing Man:

But I can see where this thread is going, and to be honest, the self-styled open mindedness and moral pureness of some posters is putting me off discussing it any further.

A perfect example of what I was talking about. For me, it would be closed-mindedness and moral indignation that would be more likely to put me off. If people want to be homophobic and judgemental, they may as well remain JWs. I'm not really sure how to help people who are closed-minded but I cannot and will not pretend to be as closed-minded as they are in order to gain their trust under false pretences.

15

Great article on Homosexuality and choice...

by avishai in

jw
friends

http://www.whosoever.org/v2issue2/warren.html.

.

wonder if they're an xjw what with the use of the word jehovah....

funkyderek

Good article, especially this paragraph which sums up everything we need to know about the issue:

In the long run, it doesn't matter whether orientation is caused by genes or conditioning! What matters is how people choose to declare themselves! Declarations of one's sexual orientation should be respected and protected as fervently as declarations of one's beliefs or politics. And guess what...people get to change from Mormon to Catholic, or Protestant to Jew, without losing their human rights. Offering people this choice on orientation doesn't mean (as some church people insist) that we would be opening the door to legalizing bestiality, rape, exploitation of minors, etc. It simply means that, in the area of nonviolent adult consensual relations -- if a person decides that he or she wants to "be gay," or wants to "stop being gay," they can make that choice without being unduly pressured by anybody.

21

gay-parship adverts

by The Nothing Man in

jw
friends

i consider them inappropiate, won't do anything for current witnesses curious about the truth about the truth if they see gay dating adverts on this site; it will just strengnthen their resolve that apostates are bad.

.

i don't visit here much, and i know this point will be contested, what with so many 'open minded' people on here, but i think it dents our operation in helping people see the truth.

funkyderek

The Nothing Man:

I consider them inappropiate, won't do anything for current Witnesses curious about the truth about the truth if they see gay dating adverts on this site; it will just strengnthen their resolve that Apostates are bad.

What if they're gay? They may be delighted to see that we're not at all like the irrational bigots in the Watchtower.

I don't visit here much, and I know this point will be contested, what with so many 'open minded' people on here, but I think it dents our operation in helping people see the truth.

Then for your part in the operation, you can choose not to host such advertising. A wise old apostate once told me that his methods were vilified by other apostates for being too hostile. They preferred the softly-softly approach which undoubtedly worked for some people and were concerned that his hate-filled invective would scare people off, which it probably did. But at least some JWs became so apoplectic with rage about hearing their beloved religion ridiculed so abusively that they resolved to prove him wrong, but after expending considerable time and effort to do so, found that everything he had written was in fact correct, and as a result they left the religion. The fact is we don't know exactly what will attract curious JWs and what will turn them off, and I for one refuse to compromise myself or my views on the basis that somebody might become offended. This is what the world outside the Watchtower walls is like, and it serves no purpose to pretend otherwise.

43

When did black comedians stop being funny?

by JimmyPage in

jw
friends

i like mike epps, cedric the entertainer, and martin lawrence.

so i rented "welcome home roscoe jenkins".

didn't laugh once.. i like tracey morgan and ice cube.

funkyderek

nvrgnbk:

Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle are still funny, IMO.

All their jokes seem to be that (a) black people are different from white people and (b) black people unfairly get treated differently from white people. You can get a couple of laughs from either of those ideas, but I'm baffled as to how they've managed to build careers doing nothing else.