hillary_step

Joined

• started 189 topics
• posted 7,220 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hillary_step

• 
  49

  The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".

  dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".

  his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Hooberus,

  The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance. However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).

  Shaking head......

  You really are grasping at straws aren't you. You have missed the point that Dawkins was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion.

  As evidence of this I ask you to look at your statement above, especially with relation to the word 'deception'. You have added motive to Dawkins logic and assumed that his intent is to 'deceive', to use trickery, presumably to fool the believers.

  You cannot divorce your own personal feelings against Dawkins from this issue Hooberus, and that is where you are failing to see the point that Dawkins is really making.

  HS
• 
  70

  If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  many who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.

  some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.

  do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Glancing through Obves post, and remembering the frequent psychotic leanings of JCanon, BrownBoy whatever he is this week makes me ask the question:

  Are believers in God more prone to delusions of grandeur and bouts of glorious insanity than are non believers?

  HS
• 
  70

  If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  many who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.

  some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.

  do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything."

  Those who stand for nothing, as opposed to 'believing' nothing, will very quickly be eaten up by a some religion or the other.

  I am quite sure that most on this thread have misunderstood what Narkissos means by 'believing nothing and believing everything'. As Don Van Vliet once growled:

  ...tropical hot dog night
  like two flamingos in a fruit fight
  i don't want to know about wrong or right
  yeah, i don't want to know, i'm anywhere tonight

  tropical hot dog night
  like two flamingos in a fruit fight
  like stepping out of a triangle into
  striped light

  tropical hot dog night
  everything is wrong at the same time it's right
  the truth has no patterns for me tonight
  i'm playing this music
  so the young girls will come out
  to meet the monster tonight
  meet the monster tonight....

  HS
• 
  70

  If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  many who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.

  some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.

  do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Slim,

  The logic of your theory is flawed, as has been pointed out to you. I think you are attempting to bend conclusions to suit the theory that you have posited and that is why you have tangled yourself in your own words.

  1) A religious 'narrative' as you describe it can be measured against the object of its foundation.

  2) It does not require that a person hold to any religious belief in order for them to prove a flawed theology.

  I am not sure what has been going on between yourself and Narkissos but I understand completely and actually confirm with my own view his expression which suggests that he believes 'everything and nothing' - though taking a literalist approach to this statement, as you seem to have done, is actually missing its point.

  If you do not mind me observing, your posts often reflect the mind of a person who is desperately trying not to face the inevitable about the WTS and its teachings.

  Cheers - HS
• 
  70

  If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  many who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.

  some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.

  do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Slim,

  But how does someone who genuinely believes nothing

  I am puzzled by what you mean by a person who believes 'nothing'.

  As the subject of your thread was all about JW's and their Biblical beliefs, my using the term 'non-believer' quite obviously described those who do not believe WTS teachings or that the Bible is the word of God.

  I see no dichotomy is a non-believer first showing that WTS teachings are incongrous with many Biblical tenets AND then showing that the Bible itself cannot be relied on.

  HS
• 
  70

  If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  many who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.

  some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.

  do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Slim,

  Personally I find it hard to say the Witnesses are wrong about anything. If I say they are wrong about what the Bible means, then don't I have to demonstrate what it does mean? Otherwise how do I know they are wrong. I am in no position to do that.

  A non-believer can demonstrate that the WTS is incorrect in many of its Biblical interpretations by using the Bible itself to prove this. The non-believer can then go on to prove the Bible itself to be suspect, at least as the literal word of God, by providing external evidence for this fact.

  I see nothing incongruous in this process.

  HS
• 
  28

  Is the Bible REALLY the "Word of God"?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it can be picked apart scientifically and it's prophetic claims don't withstand scrutiny.

  surely god could've come up with something more convincing?.

  if the almighty had started genesis by establishing his credentials thoroughly i'd be more inclined to take the rest of the book seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Real One,

  The Bible has so much meaning. You can read it over and over again and still be delighted by what you learn. how many of you have read a scripture and then later read it again and got more out of it? Thats because the word is alive.

  .....And if the same mental process happens when I am reading a book that undermines the value of the Bible, is that book alive or dead? HS
• 
  57

  A New Theory of the Universe

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  robert lanza has literally written the book on stem cell science and delves into the issue of consciousness, reality, and a biocentric view of the universe.. .

  while i was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently.

  why does the universe exist?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  An interesting and though-provoking read, thank you, though I am not sure that we are on the edge of anything at all because I am not sure there is an 'edge' to arrive at.

  What is happening is that as the world becomes more measurable by science, the language of commanility is enhanced and wonderment becomes more widespread. I do not share this persons perhaps pessimistic view of the conduct of science and especially his view that in many ways despite our science, we know little more about life than the ancients. Many of these ideas have been the stuff of philosophy for over one hundred years.

  What we interpret as the world is brought into existence inside our head.

  As is everything else including God. We find a commonality in communication and in the language of measurement. It is how we are able to function collectively. that is why measurable sceince is o very important to us.

  For example, each believer has a different view of God. This occurs as each individual interprets 'God' viscerally and strains their idea of God through a sieve of unique experiences and unique emotions. Five billion people believe in God, there you have five billion Gods. Five billion people believe that Slime Dion sings like an angel, there you have a miracle. :) When a person uses the term 'God', though each has a different view or dimension of the thing they call God, they each understand the language of the metaphysical enough to find a commonality.

  A person is given a ruler, which a common usage has developed into feet and inches, or centimeters and millimeteres etc.. The measurement is not open to interpretation as we know how we arrived here. As the science and language of measurement extends itself into fields that were once closed to us, we build our dreams and our philosophies around it, but the basic tools of commonality seldom if ever change.

  I have no idea if we will ever understand the mystery that is at the root of all things, I suspect and hope that we never will. My own experience suggests that nothing that I learn about the 'now' is satisfying to the spirit, but living in the 'now' is. But hell, who am I anyway but a hairy glow worm who is annoyed at a scientist shining his flashlight on me when I am trying to watch TV.

  HS
• 
  168

  Athiest or Agnostic?

  by real one in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how can one be considered an athiest?

  athiest means you believe god does not exist.

  agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Real One,

  why are you concerned with my brain?

  Well, speaking frankly, it does not seem to work at all and no brain should be allowed to stay in such a state without at least trying to kick start it into activity.

  Just view me as doing my civic duty. ;)

  HS
• 
  62

  Have you ever just felt crushed by what someone has said to you?

  by Hope4Others in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hillary_step

  Flying,

  What people say on the board doesn't bother me so much. Getting fired, well, that's a little harder to take.

  Too true. My comments were generally made and not directed in any particular direction. Not sure who has been fired, but my commiserations. I have been self-employed most of my life, though I have been close to firing myself several times. ;) HS