Posts by JonathanH

56

How to destroy the validity of your own mind.

by Terry in

jw
friends

the standard of what is true is what is real.. truth=reality.

at the point of contradiction.. with what?

it would be unthinkable for reality to contradict itself.. .

JonathanH

@ Elderelite

I used to hear that reasoning when I was on the inside. That god created matter from his own energy, but even that is a nonsense concept. It only works if you don't understand at all what energy is. It would still imply that god is a physical being if he created the universe by exerting his own energy. From wiki

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ?ν?ργεια energeia "activity, operation" [ 1 ] ) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

The total energy contained in an object is identified with its mass, and energy (like mass), cannot be created or destroyed. When matter (ordinary material particles) is changed into energy (such as energy of motion, or into radiation), the mass of the system does not change through the transformation process. However, there may be mechanistic limits as to how much of the matter in an object may be changed into other types of energy and thus into work, on other systems. Energy, like mass, is a scalar physical quantity. In the International System of Units (SI), energy is measured in joules, but in many fields other units, such as kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, are customary. All of these units translate to units of work, which is always defined in terms of forces and the distances that the forces act through.

So exactly how does this supernatural god that exists outside of our universe and physical laws don't apply to him, apply his own energy to creating mass? It's a nonsense contradictory answer. However that view is more in line with spinozan deism (which is what Einstein ascribed to) that the universe itself is god. Not a concious thinking god mind you, in his day Spinoza was considered an atheist. Now he's considered a deist. But that discussion is completely beyond any witness.

158

Can the Bible be proved wrong?

by The Quiet One in

JonathanH

Also just as a helpful warning on your guide to enlightment. Learn to spot nonsense answers. That is to say answers that sound good or even follow the rules of logic (we can talk about formal logic and it's important limitations if you want) but don't actually mean anything.

"1. Realities of meaninglessness

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between masculine and feminine. Thus, Baudrillard uses the term ‘the precultural paradigm of discourse’ to denote not depatriarchialism, as the prepatriarchial paradigm of context suggests, but neodepatriarchialism.

Derrida suggests the use of neodialectic capitalist theory to modify and analyse society. Therefore, any number of theories concerning the common ground between class and sexual identity may be found."

That is a small portion of an essay from something called "The post modernism generator" (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/). It's absolutely meaningless, but is structured like an arguement and even looks intelligent. But it's fluff, it means nothing. Something I find immensely frustrating about arguing with spiritualists that think they are beyond reason, is that most of their arguements are like the above. Structured, following the rules of logic, but utterly devoid of meaning.

There was a post on a previous page to explain how faith isn't irrational. The post went

That is not quite accurate, dear one, and as you may have noticed, I am a bit pendantic when it comes to things of this nature (i.e., related to God, Christ, faith, etc.). Faith... is the ASSURED expectation of the thing hoped for... the EVIDENT demonstration of reality... though NOT beheld." The word "yet" denotes that one believes in something that will occur in the FUTURE... and yes, that requires faith. However, faith also includes (and actually is BASED on) belief in something that is occurring NOW... even though one does not "behold" it (see it with one's physical eyes/senses).

For example, that Christ speaks. Faith does not just say he will return and speak to us in the future; it says he speaks... and so we can HEAR him... NOW. Just not with our [physical] ears. It does not just say that one day we will see God, but that we can see Him NOW... through Christ... just not with our physical eyes, but with the eyes of our SPIRIT. Because HE is a spirit."

What the hell does that mean? Does that MEAN anything? A theology generator could have spit that out. When you see writing like this, ask yourself "Is anything said in here actually tangible or demonstrable, or is it just gibberish?" How does one see a spirit with one's spirit eyes? What are spirit eyes? Did the reply "Faith is the belief in something occuring now even though one does not behold it" in anyway answer or refute the initial objection that faith is anti rational because it relies on things not beheld? Or did it just deny it then rephrase it? Would this be in any way convincing or meaningful to somebody who belonged to a different religion but also believed because of intangible revelation?

How would you re-write this reply without the flowery religious language?

Faith is believing that something will happen without evidence which requires faith, but faith is also believing in something that is evident right now which provides evidence that the future thing will occur. The thing that is happening now and not in the future is that god is speaking to us, but we can't hear him, and he appears before us but we can't see him. You have to use your spirit ears and your spirit eyes to see jesus who shows us god.

Based on that definition, what does faith mean? Or was that gibberish?

When trying to deduce the reality of things being able to cut to the actual meaning of what is being said will be invaluable. Because the really religious devout have a way of talking alot without ever saying anything with meaning. And some people mistake that for an answer.

Socrates always played the devils advocate. Act like you don't believe a proposition, and then have others try to convince you of it. Don't assume before hand that the position is true and then try to reason on whether or not the assumption that it is true is true. If you didn't believe in christianity would the above definition of faith be in anyway convincing or rational?

158

Can the Bible be proved wrong?

by The Quiet One in

JonathanH

Don't worry, I read your post on socrates and skepticism, the quiet one. I understand your struggle, I went through it several years ago.

First keep in mind that we never "prove" anything outside of math and pure logics, with experience we rather assign probability to things. When we say something is a "fact" what we mean is that based on available evidence it is drastically more likely to be true than opposing ideas. So if you're asking "is the bible and christianity true?" Then you're asking the wrong question. It should be "Which is more probable based on available evidence and reason? The bible is a divine document in some way relating the purposes of a divine being, or that it's a collection of myths not unlike other religious texts?" Once you let go of absolutes and start to deal in probabilities it becomes much easier to unshackle oneself from the burden of needing to think in absolute certainties.

When being skeptical, one must be careful not to descend into epistimological nihilism, the idea that nothing can be known, and thus (logically following) all ideas are equal. I always like using this comic to make light of the problems of this view.

If you really want to go down the road of solipsism and epistimilogical nihilism, then sure. But that puts christianity on equal footing with any insane thing that you can come up with. Or more importantly it is on equal footing with every religion that puts emphasis on intangible divine revelations rather than anything that can be reasoned on. So let's toss out the notion that the bible or christianity can be dealt with on the basis of reason or evidence. What happens when a muslim and a christian try to show each other the truth of their religion now? Both believing that it isn't something that you can reason on, or demonstrate with evidence? Now for both it is very important to convince the other of their beliefs because the salvation of the other person depends on it, and they have both been told to proselytize in the name of their respective saviors. So what do they do? They both say "Isn't X great, X changed my life, and I can feel X in my heart. Won't you accept the truth of X into your life?" And then with no where else to go they leave and mutter to themselves that something must be wrong with the other person, why else wouldn't they be able to accept X into their life?

When one begins to claim that their position can't be reasoned on, and is not an evidence based claim then what they are saying in reality is "I can't back up anything I'm saying, so just believe me.". This is exactly what the society did, and was one of the more salient points I realized when getting out of the organization. They constantly hammered home not to "rely on your own power of understanding" because satan was smarter than us, and if we tried to reason on what the society was teaching then satan could trick us into believing lies. But that is self defeating. If our power of reason were so faulty, then how would we ever know that we had the truth? Couldn't satan just as easily trick us into thinking the witnesses were the truth? We would have to just "know" it's the truth without reason or evidence according to the society (and according to the christians that try to distance themselves from the bible and rely on metaphors).

So are you going to rely on reason? Or are you going to believe something just because? And if it's the latter, what would you believe if you were born in india? What would a conversation with a christian that relies on personal revelation look like from your perspective if you belonged to a culture that considered christianity just another religion out of thousands?

158

Can the Bible be proved wrong?

by The Quiet One in

JonathanH

I also see a few people who seem to not understand the notion of "being able to prove something wrong". This doesn't mean "Has it been proven wrong" This means "can something be falsified", or rather "is there any means by which something could hypothetically be proven wrong. Is there a method by which this could be demonstrated to be wrong" If the answer is "no" then it isn't a sound belief. You want to be able to hypothetically prove something is wrong.

You need to ask yourself "What would it take to convince me that the bible is not the word of god, and does not reveal any information about anything divine, but is actually just a man made collection of myths and stories as I view the Koran or Greek Mythology" If your answer to that question is "nothing, I would accept nothing as evidence of this." then your views have left the realm of reason or rationality, and have entered the realm of wishful thinking and imagination, because this means your views aren't BASED ON ANYTHING because there is nothing to be removed that would cause the belief to crumble.

Any good belief will have a means of demonstrating whether the belief is true or false. Otherwise it isn't belief so much as it is fancy.

158

Can the Bible be proved wrong?

by The Quiet One in

JonathanH

The bible, inerrant or not inerrant? I think the assumption of a flawed bible is actually a more offensive approach to christianity than it's opposite (this coming from an atheist).

To claim the bible is the inspired and flawless word of god is at it's heart a scientific notion, or at least one that can be approached scientifically. For it is a specific claim, and one that can be tested and reasoned upon. Those that think this believe that there is ample evidence be it historic, geologic, biologic ect, to back up this claim, they see it as a matter of just needing to show those that disbelieve the evidence and reason on it. It may be dumb as hell, and a fool's errand to demonstrate the truth and value of the bible, but at least they are trying.

Then there is the view espoused above by a few that it isn't the bible that is the foundation of their belief and subsequent salvation, but rather some intangible, unexplainable, revelation of knowledge and insight that is only tangentially related to the bible. In this view the bible can be as wrong as wrong can be, because it's not the important thing. This revealed insight and relationship with Jesus is the important thing. To contrast this with the previous view, this means that all the muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus ect that do not believe in christ are not lacking in reason, or evidence, but rather they as people are in some way defective or more wicked because jesus isn't in their lives. This revealed knowledge and relationship they must have rejected in their wickedness. Why would jesus reveal himself to one person but refuse to under any circumstances reveal himself to another person? Why does the Hindu never feel the presence of christ in his life? Why does the skeptical atheist calling out for a messiah to reveal himself never hear back from one? If Jesus wanted to have this relationship with people, then it must be the person's fault for not having that relationship. There is something fundementally wrong with that individual, be it their hautiness, their pride, their stubborness, their idolatry, something. Otherwise Jesus would be in their lives. In this view one's beliefs have nothing to do with their geography, culture, philosophy, education, but rather whether or not they are righteous enough to have christ in their lives. This smacks of the witness view point of demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. To not accept their beliefs is a result of a defect in the individual.

To those that put importance on the bible being without flaw, there is some kind of discussion to be had. Trying to disprove that life evolves and prove the earth is young, or that genocide is a good thing sometimes may be a ridiculous discussion to be had, but there is an actual discussion to be had. But with the second kind, there simply is nothing to discuss. The bible thumper can point to william lane craig, or flood "science", but the ones that rely on revelation have nothing to offer some one as reason to believe other than saying "Jesus is really great, he changed my life, and I can feel him in my heart. Why don't you feel him in your heart? Why won't you let Jesus in?" Which is a more offensive, and radically more frustrating conversation to have. At that point the individual has ceased any meaningful communication with the other party.

12

College education pays

by hoser in

jw
friends

my first post seems to be locked.

this from cnn today.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/opinion/06/09/aoun.college.benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.

JonathanH

I'm glad to hear that my post could be encouraging to someone "won't let me fade". I hope you're son is having the time of his life and learning much. I'm starting college this fall. Haven't decided my major for certain just yet. I've narrowed it to Engineering (not sure if I will go mechanical or electrical though), Biology, or meteorology. I will most likely go with engineering though simply on the basis that it's a very marketable skill, and I'm not sure how many jobs there are for biologists or meteoroligists with graduate degrees. I want to get a masters at some point, but baby steps.

18

A Typical Witnessing Letter from JW Family

by mummatron in

thought i'd share this as this is a typical example of the kind of letters i get very occasionally from my jw family.

in this instance it was sent as my daughter had spent some time in hospital.

note, very little information in terms of family news.

JonathanH

My family hasn't talked to me in years. Honestly, I think I'm pretty happy about that.

12

College education pays

by hoser in

jw
friends

my first post seems to be locked.

this from cnn today.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/opinion/06/09/aoun.college.benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.

JonathanH

One of the last assemblies I went to had a part on college education. It was directed at parents, which I found partically disgusting as it was meant to take the choice away from teenagers and tell parents to prevent their kids from going to school. It related sending your kid to college like being in a life raft and sending your kid to swim for shore. He might make it...or he might get eaten by sharks. Or you could stay in the boat and wait for rescue that you know is coming. It's up to you to decide, we won't decide for you....but really it's sharks or jesus. I was shocked that in a statement the speaker made the tacit admittal "If you send your child to college there is a good chance that after getting this education he will no longer think that we have the truth. And we don't want that do we?" I looked around thinking that surely everyone was confused that this man was admitting that ignorance is the key to their beliefs, but nope, everyone was either yawning or taking notes or walking around. It didn't phase anyone. I felt like a sane person sitting in an asylum wondering how I got there.

14