Bohm, I'm sorry, but the phrase "Probability doesn't establish truth" is so spectacularly self-explanatory that I don't think I need say any more. If that phrase no longer carries an obvious and undeniable meaning for you then I am afraid that you are in danger of disappearing forever up your own orifice. LOL.
Posts by Essan
-
77Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?
by nicolaou inthe watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?
and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?
could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.
-
-
-
77
Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?
by nicolaou inthe watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?
and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?
could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.
-
-
Essan
"how about 3: subjecting god to the rigor applied to any scientific hypothesis reveal there is to little evidence to accept it."
This doesn't disprove God. If it could be accurately done - which it can't - and if it came out with the result you expect, it would only prove God was unlikely, not that God doesn't exist. Probability doesn't establish truth. We've been through this. So at the end one would still not "know", therefore one would still be agnostic. If one used supposed probability to decide that they believed that God did not exist, then they'd be a believer, who bridged a gap in full proof with faith based belief.
Anyway, I really don't want to get back into this debate. Where is my self control? LOL
-
77
Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?
by nicolaou inthe watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?
and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?
could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.
-
-
Essan
Double post
-
77
Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?
by nicolaou inthe watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?
and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?
could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.
-
-
Essan
Trinity :)
-
77
Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?
by nicolaou inthe watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?
and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?
could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.
-
-
Essan
DD said: "I'm not sure how combining the atheist's bias (that there is no God) with agnostic uncertainty gives you "credibility"
And that, for me, is the most accurate and pertinent line in this thread. The two don't mix. They are contradictory, and so this version of "atheism" is meaningless, IMO.
How can a meaningful label embrace two groups with totally different views?
1."I absolutely believe God does not exist" AND, 2 "Well I don't know for sure, but theism is stupid".
Obviously, It can't meaningfully do so. (Note, Nic, how you knew that the posters were going to understand atheism to mean an outright denial of the possibility of God's existence and how you had to explain this wasn't your position before you even started? If atheism actually was an appropriate label for your position then you wouldn't have to do this. You could say atheist and that would be enough. But it isn't. Maybe you need a more appropriate label?)
If you don't know, you're agnostic. If you claim you do know, you're wrong, and you're either a theist or an atheist. If you say you don't know for sure but you act as if you do, and selectively oppose theism, you're not an "atheist", you're confused and your position is self-contradictory; you're an agnostic who has given in to bias because you enjoy bashing theists or theism. Either that, or you're a fraud who actually does believe God doesn't exist, but wants to hide that belief and professes to "not know for sure" in order to escape being likened to a Theistic believer. But if one really didn't believe they knew for sure, why would they associate with a label and a group commonly known for denying outright the possibility of God's existence? Hmm.
Anyway, I'm not getting back into this debate. Atheists are as crazy as Theists, and defend their belief with as much venom and unreasonableness, IMO. So, I'll take my leave. :)
-
20
Staying "Loyal" and King David/Saul Question...
by Confucious inok.... had a good discussion with a jdub friend.
good friend.. and i gave the argument, "hey.., loyalty to god trumps loyalty to organization.".
basically, that when your concious disagrees with "god's organization" that you should stand up and say something.. then he gave me a good point about king david and how saul was the organization at the time but since it was god's appointed one - that david didn't work to "overthrow" saul.. thoughts?.
-
-
Essan
Debator said: "Good points trueScript also the assumption here is that being an organisation is a position of wrongdoing itself? so the whole concept of flock/congregation/holy nation/organisation as something that is to be rejected is a false one."
No, the OP didn't mention anything about " being an organisation is a position of wrongdoing itself" nor did anyone who responded, so what are you posting this for?
But to take up your point, there is nothing wrong with an organization, but there is something wrong with a man-made Organization with an appalling history of false prophesy, ever changing doctrine and contradictory teaching falsely claiming to be "God's Organization" and his sole "Channel". There is also something wrong with such an organization not permitting anyone to leave or disagree without being demonized and shunned.
-
209
Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.
by Essan ini'm disgusted.
so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.
1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.
-
-
Essan
Thanks PD.
You gave the concise summation that I was struggling to formulate.
Mission accomplished. And yet the funny thing is DJ does a far better job of exposing himself than any of us could do, in a similar manner in which the Society unwittingly exposes itself with it's own contradictory and self-condemnatory statements in it's literature.
The best gift a debunker of the Society could ever be given in order to thoroughly expose them is access to all the Society's own literature. The best gift a debunker of a lying WT apologist like DJ could be given in order to expose him is to have him turn up and post as a showcase of his deception, evasion, distraction, lack of reason and complete disregard for the established facts.
Thanks DJ. You're the gift that keeps on giving.
-
209
Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.
by Essan ini'm disgusted.
so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.
1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.
-
-
Essan
DJ, everything you just wrote is irrelevant to this topic.
You said: "In both of these quotes, you contend that a kingdom cannot come withot its king, correct? Well, tell me this what happened when, in the year 1914, invisible to human eyes, the kingdom of God became established in the heavens, with Jesus actually coming into his kingdom, which event has been discerned by Christians?"
Again I have to ask, are you really that stupid or is this another ham-fisted attempt at deceptive 'sleight of hand' to fool unwary readers?
You know - because I and other showed you - that Russell taught that 1874 marked the beginning of Jesus Presence, and he never deviated from that view. So, when he ALSO predicted Jesus coming in 1914 - IN ADDITION to his having become PRESENT in 1874, he's not predicting the the same thing again! He is predicting something else, something more, beyond the Presence of 1874. He's predicting Christ and his Kingdom coming to rule in the earth and execute judgement in a way that is manifest to all mankind - as the quotes you were given explicitly said - rather than in a way that is discernible only to watchful Christians. You've read the quotes on the previous pages, I presume? So please don't try to pull the wool over anyones eyes. You claimed that Russell predicted neither a visible or invisible coming for 1914, so that is not relevant. He certainly predicted that the effects observed from Jesus coming in 1914 would be obvious to alll. Or do you think that Russell meant no one on earth but Bible Students would notice when, as he predicted:
"the "‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership". - The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907, p. 101
The situation is almost entirely like the notions JW's hold today, except the dates and a few details are slightly different:
- Russell taught that Jesus presence began in 1874 - The Society today teaches it began in 1914.
- Russell predicted that Jesus would come to take rulership of the earth in 1914 - The Society likewise teaches Jesus will "soon" come to rule the earth.
- Russell taught that this 1914 event would be obvious to all, or "manifiest" - So too, the Society claims this obvious supernatural event will occur "soon".
It's that simple. What JW's now promise is coming "soon": the Tribulation, destruction of Babylon, Armageddon to reach it's climax, destruction of worldly governments, start of Christ's Millennial reign in the earth, the resurrection of the prophets of old - all of this, Russell predicted for 1914. You are likening Russell's view of 1914 to the JW's view of 1914, but that is deceptive. Russell's view of 1874 is like the modern JW's view of 1914, but Russell's view of 1914 is analogous to the modern JW's view of the imminent End.
This has been proven many times over. It's beyond question. Yet you claimed Russell never predicted anything for 1914, never mind that Christ would come!
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that Russell predicted countless things for 1914 including the coming of Christ and the Kingdom to be established in the earth, "on the ruins" of human institutions, the final glorification of all anointed to rule as heavenly Kings over the earth, with Christ, the termination of imperfect human rule, the resurrection of the ancient worthies and many, many other things.
You denied all of that and you were totally wrong. You demanded apologies of me for stating such a thing. So where is your retraction? You said I was lying about what Russell's original text of "The Time is At Hand" said regarding 1914 and you insisted your altered post 1915 "damage-control" version was the "original book". All your claims were false. So where is your retraction and apology? I'm not interested in another page a irrelevant waffle, evasion and attempted deception from you.
-
34
BIG talk with teenage son today
by Aussie Oz inyesterday i got to ask my kids what they thought of the convention they just had.
response was 'really good'.
daughter liked the drama but could not say why or what the lesson was... so i figure she liked it because it was more interesting than the regular talks.
-
-
Essan
Sounds like you handled that brilliantly. If you keep going like that I'm sure all will be well.
If he let's you put your case to him then, IMO, the basic formula of showing that they could not be "God's Org", or the "Faithful Slave" etc is the way to start. They lie about what they preached about 1914 back then and this lie is easy to prove. They say they qualified as FDS in 1914-1919, yet their history, which they hide, shows they could not possibly have qualified. Also, they lie about their history now, so they really can't "qualify" either back then or now. That, to me, is the key to most JW's exiting and I hear it's the main idea in the "Captives of a Concept" book. That's where I'd begin. But it seems like you have things well in hand.
-
20
Staying "Loyal" and King David/Saul Question...
by Confucious inok.... had a good discussion with a jdub friend.
good friend.. and i gave the argument, "hey.., loyalty to god trumps loyalty to organization.".
basically, that when your concious disagrees with "god's organization" that you should stand up and say something.. then he gave me a good point about king david and how saul was the organization at the time but since it was god's appointed one - that david didn't work to "overthrow" saul.. thoughts?.
-
-
Essan
Ah, thanks. I'll have a look round. :)