XJW4: When the uber-liberal, agnostic Bart Ehrman says it...it must be true.
But Ehrman's Jesus doesn't perform miracles and rise from the dead, so Ehrman remains agnostic. Right?
SweetBabyCheezits
JoinedPosts by SweetBabyCheezits
-
34
Bart Ehrman...Jesus Existed
by XJW4EVR inwhen the uber-liberal, agnostic bart ehrman says it...it must be true.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
-
778
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking inthis is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
PHGirl: When my life ends, it ends. When/if Armaggadon comes, it comes. Do I sound like a fatalist? I'm not.
Haha, no, more like a realist. I like your take, and while I'm not worried about the Biblical Armageddon, I do worry about a man-made version. But like you said, when my life ends, it ends. In the meantime, I feel fortunate to have ever lived in the first place.
So much that man attributes to god, I believe would be an insult to a truly benevolent, loving, intelligent designer (if one existed). I think such a deity would be more appreciative of the non-believers, the ones who refuse to accept the idea that a perfect being could be so incompetent, illogical, and capricious as the gods man has invented throughout history.
Knowsnothing: Hey SBC, just for the sake of argument, can there ever be exceptions to the rule? We use this rule to determine that complex things have a complex designer, but what if the complex designer is self-contained?
Well, to my mind, an exception would mean that it's not much of a rule. If there exists a self-contained entity that transcends space and time and had no creator, then it must follow that everything that is complex doesn't always require a more complex designer. That single violation would undermine the "rule" as a valid argument, wouldn't it?
Knowsnothing: In other words, we arrive at design due to complexity because things in the universe had a start. If the universe had always been, there would be no need for this argument.
That's a legit thought, IMO. We know that the universe is expanding, even accelerating, and had a start at a single point. But there are also theories regarding cyclical universes, continuously exploding/expanding into existence and then collapsing back to a single point, and starting the cycle over again. Perhaps ours wasn't the first and won't be the last. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)
I'm not completely against deistic and panetheistic ideas but a cyclical universe model creates less of a mental conflict for me than thinking some intelligent, all-powerful designer sat out there in a great void before deciding to create our ginormous universe, install puny specs of life on one planet, and now watches with indifference from the sidelines while we suffer.
-
778
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking inthis is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Mr.Quik, you suggest we should consider science and common sense but I'd like to point out that Einstein said common sense is simply the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. The watch analogy is a perfect example of such a prejudice - a faulty analogy - as is that ridiculous Boeing 747 & tornado illustration that creationists love to use.
Among other problems, you have a predefined result at which you expect us to arrive - a watch. Evolution has no predefined result it must reach.
Secondly, if the claim is being made as a rule that complex things are obviously designed by something more complex than themselves, then a complex designer must also have been designed by something more complex as well. You can't play the teleological argument card for a watch and the universe but then pick it up off the table for your god. That would be a double standard.
There are other arguments against the watch analogy (ie, the Mandelbrot set demonstrates complexity evolving from simple, elegant systems) but that has sufficed for me.
PHGirl: I read about Pascel's Wager years ago and it made sense to me.
Did you read the arguments against his wager? (EDIT: or watch the video?)
-
778
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking inthis is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Regarding Pascal's wager...
-
778
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking inthis is an honest question on my part.
someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.
in fact, it was a turning point for me.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
As a JW, there was a period of time when I could not have been more genuine in my desire to "do Jehovah's will". On one particularly long drive for business, when I was alone and "fighting doubts about the truth," I prayed out loud - emotionally - for help distinguishing truth from lies. I poured my heart out in several chunks out of 4 hours and I experienced feelings I'd never felt... such distinct feelings that I quickly attributed it to holy spirit. I never would've done that if I didn't know Jehovah was real.
Now I believe my motives were as altruistic as they could be at that particular moment so if I interpreted those feelings correctly, then maybe I should still be a JW, eh? And if interpreted them wrong, why would holy spirit be so ambiguous that I misunderstood?
FFWD a few years - I've since felt the same thing two or three times when talking to my wife and my family at particularly emotional times, but at those moments, I'd already lost my faith in any deities. Was it holy spirit? A far simpler explanation is that strong emotions can produce physiological effects and that I had misattributed those previous feelings precisely because I was emotional and had already framed my experience to be a spiritual one. I set myself up for deception.
The human psyche is an amazing thing. Faith, to me, is this:
Today, I see no convincing logic or evidence to believe in a personal, intervening god, especially not the ones described in ancient literature. I don't even like using the term "god" since it is nearly inseparable from subjective religious bias. Scientifically untouchable realms may exist all around us but that would lend no credence to the capricious, self-absorbed god described in the Bible.
I'm open to the idea that we are not the highest intelligence in the universe as much as I'm open to the idea that we are an experiment, volunteers in a simulation, or a form of live entertainment for some less-than-benevolent entities. But those hypotheses are unfalsifiable. If and when supporting evidence presents itself for any grand ideas, I'll jump on board. Until then, here's what I do know:
- Lots of questions remain unaswered for me at the moment, but I know that's in large part due to my own ignorance. I'm trying to remedy that as much as possible by educating myself in science and math.
- I know that much of what is perplexing to me right now is pretty well understood by biologists, neurologists, physicists, and the like, who have devoted lifetimes to their respective fields.
- I know specific things that perplex today's biologists, neurologists, and physicists will be better understood by future generations of high school students, assuming Homo sapiens survive a few more decades.
So I refuse to, as Isaac Azimov put it, 'surrender to ignorance and call it God, since that has always been - and remains to be - premature.'
On the bright side, I think we would have more reason to be concerned if we were a reflection of our creator's image than having no designer at all (which, by the way, is a false dichotomy since deism and pantheism are also up for grabs). If a designer possessing the full gamut of human emotion was responsible for our existence - that would be scary. Just look at how we treat less intelligent species.... or even our own. -
7
Advertisement on back of June Awake
by SweetBabyCheezits inhere are two uplifting quotes from the latest awake that show the happiness one might enjoy as a member of god's spirit-directed organization:.
the illustration on that page showed me that my progress is noticed by god.
this book made me realize that i can make my prayers more specific and ask god to help me with my feelings of worthlessness.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Here are two uplifting quotes from the latest Awake that show the happiness one might enjoy as a member of God's Spirit-directed Organization:
“The illustration on that page showed me that my progress is noticed by God. . . . This book made me realize that I can make my prayers more specific and ask God to help me with my feelings of worthlessness. In turn, I will be able to pray to him before giving in to temptation and thereby conquer my bad habit.
“I have confidence that even though I have fallen more than 77 times over the years, I will overcome my problem. I no longer feel that I’m the worst sinner to walk the planet.”
(Pics not included in article, unfortunately)
Missed is the fact that these commenters wouldn't experience said feelings if not for their shitty religion.
-
17
JUNE 2012 AWAKE!
by St George of England inthe new awake!
is up for digestion.. another 537 bce article to be shredded - see page 12. george.
.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I love the flowchart they use on page 15 to persuade kids to read their articles:
-
62
Great Quotes of Great Minds
by N.drew in"there was no doubt in my mind that he was talking directly to me.
he said being assertive isn't a luxury, it's our inalienable right.
we don't have to feel quilty about it.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
-
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Get with the times, man. Yes is so February.
-
59
How to Record a Judicial Meeting
by 00DAD inintroduction: this subject came up on another thread and seemed important enough to justify its own thread:.
judicial hearing procedure, chapter 7. recording devices.
"recording devices should not be allowed.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I used my iPhone to record our meeting and we got a half-decent audio file. But I also got busted - my own stupid fault for getting greedy and leaving my iPhone in the conference room after we were asked to leave. Turns out, though, that "mistake" bought us the time we needed to attend the BiL's wedding. (Our kiddos were flower girl & ring bearer so we wanted to get that out of the way before the announcement.) Anyways, the elders had to consult headquarters for further direction when they found out I'd recorded the meeting and we scored an extra week or two, then rec'd the DF verdict, appealed, attended the wedding, then canceled the appeal and were announced the following week.
Here's the long of it, including how I hid my iPhone in plain sight:
