was checking out the aug. 1 public watchtower and the our readers ask... is does god dwell in one place?
think there was something in an awake a few months back about this.
the physical heavens cannot.
@ jay88
Neither of those scriptures say or imply anything about warning people either. One says god waited patiently while noah built the ark, the other says people were eating and drinkin until noah boarded the ark. Neither account says they ignored Noah, or that God told noah to do anything, or that noah did anything other than build an ark and then get on it. The society just blatantly made it up.
i've done no research on this but i suspect that a members belief or absence of belief in god may have some correspondence with the number of posts he or she has made.. my tentative suggestion is that members with fewer than 500 posts are mostly believers while members with more than 3000 posts are mostly non-believers.
of course there are exceptions, maybe quite a few, but i'm only dealing with generalities here.
so how about a survey?
Atheist with a young post count.
was checking out the aug. 1 public watchtower and the our readers ask... is does god dwell in one place?
think there was something in an awake a few months back about this.
the physical heavens cannot.
Wow, that noah's ark thing blows my mind. It's so blatant. I just went and read Genesis 6 and 7 and at NO POINT does god tell noah to warn anybody. Amazing what JW brain washing can do. I must've read the beginning of genesis a hundred times while I was on the inside and not once did I notice that God never told noah to warn anybody, but if you asked me if that the bible said that I would've said yes. Crazy.
On another note, the WT's attempts at intellectualism are always amusing/horrifying/disgustingly bad. As dumb as the old school used to be, the new school has absolutely zero background in any intellectual pursuit. They got to the top by being blindly obedient, not theologically intellectual. All these philosophical questions there are volumes and volumes written on by great thinkers of the past. Then some really badly educated guys take themselves to be importants mediums to understanding the nature of god so they come up with crap like "God isn't omniscient, it's just that like, he's in heaven in his like throne, but he's shoots out like these spirit probes that go to the place and see what's happening, and then the spirit probes come back and tell god what is happening, so like he knows what's going on. But that's not a problem for free will, because like you know, you can do whatever, he might not use his spirit probes to go to the future, but sometimes he does, and he could, but he doesn't or didn't and that's why you have free will." And somewhere Aquinas is crying.
The other topic on how they talked about how things like historical criticism, or textual criticism are just evidence that scholars are always critical of the bible. I mean WTF, and I guess movie critics just really don't like movies. Damn they're stupid. They wanted a generation that wouldn't think for themself or get an education, and they got just that, and now they're in charge.
Don't worry, Quiet one, me and Aguest are just having some fun. I am in no way offended by anything Aguest says, and I hope (and Aguest indicates) that it is mutual. I respect people, but not ideas. Ideas are meant to be kicked around, torn to pieces, and taped back together. I always respect an individual, but never respect their ideas, and I only ask that same treatment. So me and Aguest are cool, don't worry about it.
But on that note, I will only agree to disagree. But the discussion was not for the benefit of myself or Aguest, we already know what we believe and why, it is just for your benefit (so sorry if it seemed harsh), so you can see different ways of reasoning, and if simply claiming "it's beyond reason or evidence" is a compelling arguement or remotely sane way to figure out if something is true.
I contest (obviously) that it is not. There is no way for a person to say "I can hear the voice of my savior, and he instructs me." and for you to be able to say that there is any truth to that beyond "this person is hearing voices". Because there are alot of people that hear voices, but they can never agree on who they are and what they want. It should also be telling that people only hear the voices of the spirits they believe in. You never hear a devout muslim saying "I keep hearing this wierd voice, It's definitely not allah, I know Allah's voice. This seems a bit more...eh...jewish? Keeps saying something about treasures in heaven, and holy one of Israel...I don't know, I'm just going to ignore it, that's what Allah would want." The voices always seem to align with whatever religious disposition the person has. You can take that information and do with it as you will.
It should also be telling that for every person that hears these voices there is some different explanation as to why other people aren't hearing them the same way. For Aguest, this seems to be that we either are ignoring the voice, don't know "how" to hear the voice, or perhaps when we searched for truth we did it wrong, or found the wrong truth. This seems to me to be a pretty weak view of this messiah. Can you imagine him watching you read the bible and going "Yes, yes....he's searching, he really wants to know me...aw, dammit he's totally misunderstanding that passage, THANKS ALOT protestant denomination number 312, now I can't talk to the guy. Well, maybe if I just yell, HEY, HEY, I AM THE CHRIST....dammit all to hell, he doesn't know how to use his spirit ears. Well....nevermind. Atheism isn't that bad." If christ wanted us to hear him, there would be nothing to prevent us from hearing him. Which means we can only assume that everyone that doesn't hear him, doesn't want to. Even going so far to say that I do not want to test it, like a person who claims the earth is flat but won't get in the boat. Believe me I tested as much as anyone. As the old joke goes, I prayed to god to be shown truth, and I found atheism.
Also notice, that when it came to an impasse, when a Muslim or a Hindu also heard voices but not attributing it to Jesus, then to reason with them Aguest immediately went back to historical EVIDENCE. Which leaves you with either trying to use historical evidence and reason to determine the value of the bible or any holy writ, or hearing voices in your head (or "heart") and insisting that you aren't crazy just like all the other people hearing voices in their head that are making wildly different claims, and coming up with reasons why some people don't hear the voices, and why those other voices are wrong.
You can use this information as you see fit.
As a note to Aguest, at no point did I say you had no right to believe what you do. As voltaire said, I may disagree with what you say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it. Simply claiming that the view of divine revelation is disrespectful to all non christians does not imply that you have no right to believe it. Also, plato's apologies never say anything about Socrates worshipping Yahweh, or Adonai, or the jewish god. But it does talk about how socrates believes wisdom only belongs to the gods (<--plural). So you've got divine revelation to back up that statement. Anyway, good chat, and we can at least agree on that hopefully it was good for the Quiet One. I acquiesce the final word to you.
to me...the following story exemplifies why freedom of speech is so important.
people should be exposed to differing ideas & beliefs for their own good.. my comment is highlighted below, it's funny, sad & i realize...not representative of most christians.
(most, i believe will think about it, but, not act on it) .
I was being facetious, dgp. My point was that so called "militant atheists" aren't going around vandalizing property because they don't like the message. They use their violently rational discussions and the brutality of oxford style debates, such militant savages.
to me...the following story exemplifies why freedom of speech is so important.
people should be exposed to differing ideas & beliefs for their own good.. my comment is highlighted below, it's funny, sad & i realize...not representative of most christians.
(most, i believe will think about it, but, not act on it) .
Funny that they don't require church groups to pay the extra money on account of all those "militant atheists" vandalizing busses that carry religious messages.
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.. .
To The finger
And you didn't provide substantial reason on why that would be true. Merely the assertion that we can't know anything for sure.
If you want to believe it go ahead, I've got other debates going on. I'm just pointing out nihilism isn't a particularly strong starting point for claiming anything one holds to be true as being rational.
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.. .
The flaw of your reasoning Finger, is that it annihilates all views, including your own. Christianity or belief in god is now equal to believing that we live on a giant toad rocketing through fruit space. If you can't prove you aren't just some one's thoughts, you can't prove you aren't on rocket toad. Your model renders all beliefs equal, on the grounds that none of them can be proven. To say "you can't prove anything, thus god is evident" is a contradiction, and any statement could replace "thus god is evident" and the statement would be equally true. "You can't prove anything, thus rocket toad is evident".
I'm getting alot of use out of this comic today.
Case in point of alot of talking with little meaning. I mean you as a person no disrespect, Aguest, only your ideas.
First, socrates was not a follower of the judeo-christian god. He was a polytheist, he believed in a great many gods and didn't give any great reverance to Yahweh or Adonai in particular over the pantheon of gods he believed in. I would like to see your sources saying that he was a follower specifically of the judeo-christian god, or if that's just an assertion because you like socrates. Also an appeal to authority such as saying "Socrates believed in the divine, funny that skeptics wouldn't" is erroneous. Newton believed in alchemy, saying "I can't believe any physicist would believe in chemistry" on these grounds would be absurd.
Fine, you are anti-religion. Just change anywhere that I say "religion" to "personal divine revelation". Same difference in mentality, just more emphasis on self rather than a group.
Two, your discourse on rationality has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not faith is rational. Pointing to hedonistic actions, saying that people think they are rational, and then claiming they are in fact irrational in a spirit world, then claiming that more socialistic and religious practices are irrational on earth, but very rational in the spirit realm does not in anyway make believing that the voices in your head are of divine origin more rational. They are just assertions with no backing. This was more theology speak in that it was alot of talking that made no meaningful point whatsoever, nor had any evidence for their claims, or means to falsify their conclusions, and little to do with the topic anyway. None of that has anything to do with reason or rationality as it pertains to believing things without any means of demonstrating, reasoning, or falsifying.
And furthermore, we are not a soul, we are a brain that receives stimuli from organs that sense the world around us. Take my legs and I may still perceive, but take my amygdala and see where I am at. Altering one's brain alters one's perceptions, there is no evidence that some outside mystical force is manipulating our brain, there is ample evidence and experimentation that changing the brain, changes the person. A tumor or railroad spike to the head can completely change your attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and mentality. If our thoughts and perceptions were the result of a soul, electically stimulating certain parts of the brain wouldn't radically change how we think, feel, and perceive. And just to cut you off at the pass, claiming that we don't understand everything about the brain doesn't some how imply that there are magic forces making us happy instead of endorphins.
Think about telling some one you have absolute belief that jesus revealed himself to you, but there is no way to demonstrate this other than say it's true, and that he would reveal himself to anyone if they allowed it. Is this rational? Put yourself in some one elses shoes. Could you expect somebody to accept this as a rational answer without tangible evidence? To answer this, replace "Jesus" with "Cyborg Napoleon from Mars", or better yet, "Allah" or "Vishnu". As absolutely certain you are of your divine revelation, what would you say to some one who was equally certain about their divine revelation about "Allah"? Could you say anything? Would the fact that this person has absolute faith in what Allah is telling him, mean that in some way for some reason he has rejected Jesus in his life? What would be your explanation as to why this person believes absolutely in Allah as has been revealed to him, but does not believe in Jesus as you do? After all you have evidence of jesus, but it is invisible to everyone else, the evidence is "in you". He has evidence of "Allah" but his evidence is invisible to everyone else, the evidence is "in him". At such an impasse, what do you do, and why the difference? Why should anyone believe you over him or him over you?
I also find it telling that, much like the society, you posit that education and intelligence are a hinderance to understanding. If only we were more like children, that are prone to believing in santa, the easter bunny, monsters under the bed, and imaginary friends then we would believe the voices in our head are coming from spirit dimensions. Claiming that ignorance, or willed ignorance is a helpful requisite to believing something is not something to be proud of. The society called this "humilty" or rather the abject acceptance of things without question or evidence. This goes back to what I said before that this view of divine revelation is incredibly disrespectful of anyone that does not hold the same view. It implies that it's not something that is a matter of going to the drawing board, and if you saw A, reasoned on B, and came to conclusion C then you would get it. It's that for some reason you refuse to get it, you don't want to get it, and by definition that makes you wicked. The guy that accepts the revelation of "Allah" in his life isn't ignorant(as we are all ignorant), he's stubborn, haughty and prideful for not accepting jesus. It has to make the assumption that one never earnestly sought truth, or else he would've already found jesus. Do you honestly think that every atheist, agnostic, and buddhist here didn't ever earnestly search for truth? They never read the bible looking for answers? You have to either believe that jesus is hiding from us, or that we absolutely refuse to accept him in our life due to our own wicked natures? Or is there a valid reason for not hearing the voice of Jesus in your head, or your spirit head, or whatever?
i think of myself as 'moderate libertarian' if i must attach a lapel card.
and i'm not sure that is entirely the correct one.. i endorse fiscal conservative thinking, believe in limited government, and a strong domestic defense policy.
in these areas, i could find myself in agreement with the talk show host.
Glenn beck is the one that plays six degrees of kevin bacon on a chalk board to show that america is about to become a stalinist/maoist/muslim/atheist/socialist/nazi regime unless we turn to the bible and Atlus shrugged, and claims that it's obvious history if you would just look it up, and make your checks payable to.... He's a kook, the only question is if he's laughing all the way to the bank or crying all the way to the bank. Just like the society.
