Posts by proplog2

14

Catholics reverse teaching

by startingover in

jw
friends

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/catholic-church-reverses-teaching-on/20070420203609990001?ncid=nws00010000000001

proplog2

Wow. The Catholic Church finally gets some new light.

Give them credit for changing something.

35

You Believe in God? Who cares?

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i think this is a good thread to post feelings about the various evolution/creation and atheism/theism disputes on this discussion board.. i don't really care whether most people believe in god or not.

all i care about is that science keeps doing its job.

most theists are going to contribute almost nothing to the next stage of scientific progress.

proplog2

lv4fer:

It is fair to say "You don't believe in God? Who Cares?

This is not a thread about fact. I didn't intend it to be another branch of the endless arguments about atheism and theism.

I would like to think atheists have more important things to do than argue with theists.

As atheists we are not stupid. If some real evidence is produced that there is God it will certainly get banner headlines.

In the mean time its irrelevant.

35

You Believe in God? Who cares?

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i think this is a good thread to post feelings about the various evolution/creation and atheism/theism disputes on this discussion board.. i don't really care whether most people believe in god or not.

all i care about is that science keeps doing its job.

most theists are going to contribute almost nothing to the next stage of scientific progress.

proplog2

Mouthy:

If a belief in God hasn't kept you out of trouble then you just don't believe strongly enough.

I refer to theism as a hole because the only way out is toward the light. Of course if you are still in the process of digging in your ass is to the light.

I hope you take this in good humor.

35

You Believe in God? Who cares?

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i think this is a good thread to post feelings about the various evolution/creation and atheism/theism disputes on this discussion board.. i don't really care whether most people believe in god or not.

all i care about is that science keeps doing its job.

most theists are going to contribute almost nothing to the next stage of scientific progress.

proplog2

Open Mind:

Part of my strategy on this thread is to "provoke" a response. But I really do look at theists as subscribers of an inferior, uninformed and obstructive paradigm.

Atheists DO know better.

And it isn't that I didn't spend (waste) most of my life as a theist. I have been drifting gradually toward atheism for the last 25 years.

First I questioned the Bible.

Then I questioned my religion so I could salvage my belief in the Bible.

Then I questioned the concept of a personal God.

Then I questioned the concept of an impersonal God.

God had plenty of time to help me but I finally realized that the concept of God is incoherent.

To become an Atheist was not easy but I feel it was worth the struggle - but I would have preferred spending my life on something other than breaking free from a stupid idea.

44

Love And Marriage Was The Watchtowers Way An Advantage?

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

love and marriage was the watchtowers way an advantage?the thought of one man and woman bonded through matrimony was always appealing.

the society used to stress chaperons, however, i think in todays day and age.

however, did the societys way prove helpful in certain respects?.

proplog2

More time and life is squandered in bad marriages than in bad religions.

And when bad religions force you to stay in a bad marriage that is really bad.

35

You Believe in God? Who cares?

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i think this is a good thread to post feelings about the various evolution/creation and atheism/theism disputes on this discussion board.. i don't really care whether most people believe in god or not.

all i care about is that science keeps doing its job.

most theists are going to contribute almost nothing to the next stage of scientific progress.

proplog2

I think this is a good thread to post feelings about the various evolution/creation and atheism/theism disputes on this discussion board.

I don't really care whether most people believe in God or not. All I care about is that science keeps doing its job. Most theists are going to contribute almost nothing to the next stage of scientific progress. They may become good at some technology but they will not participate in adding to the raw knowledge at the growing edge of scientific exploration. Theists are in a comfortable hole and it is best for those of us who know better to leave them there and even keep them in ignorance. People who like the theist hole apparently need that way of thinking to keep them out of trouble.

Why worry about changing their minds? Is it really possible for someone to embark on a useful scientific career if they have believed in God most of their lives? The next stage of scientific progress is all about evolution, artificial intelligence, self-organizing systems, producing energy out of nothing, controlling the things that ordinary people think are the exclusive domain of God. That's why you don't want religion taught in school. You want young minds to be free to reach into the murky world where theists are afraid to go.

24

BUT I HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED IT......................

by Dansk in

jw
friends

you can go on and on but the fact is you can't prove it!

i only have your word for it that you had your experience.. and the books you cite don't help, either, because i've only got the author's word that he's telling the truth.

how can i believe him if i haven't experienced it myself?.

proplog2

Dansk:

I like this way of explaining these things:

It's called the Gestalt Prayer
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
And if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969)

44

Love And Marriage Was The Watchtowers Way An Advantage?

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

love and marriage was the watchtowers way an advantage?the thought of one man and woman bonded through matrimony was always appealing.

the society used to stress chaperons, however, i think in todays day and age.

however, did the societys way prove helpful in certain respects?.

proplog2

Half the witness marriages end up in divorce about the same as "worldly" marriages.

Marriage is a crap-shoot. This is how it works.

There are 4 possibilities.

1. If you are too similar in personality you will be bored leading to a break-up.

2. If you are complete opposites you will fight so much you will hate each other leading to a break up.

3. If you are similar enough to get along but different enough to make it interesting you will probably stay together.

4. If you are somewhat different so that there is a degree of conflict but similar enough to resolve those differences you will probably stay together.

So you see you have a 50/50 chance and it doesn't seem like religion keeps anyone together. It just prolongs the misery when you are destined to separate.

True, social pressure can keep miserable people in a permanent relationship but it can be a living hell. Actually, the social pressures of staying in a bad relationship probably lead to the end of a marriage because of early death.

Nature will win everytime.

27

"The Red Corvette" problem -- a disconnect in view points

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

in another thread, a poster brought up what he called "the red corvette" problem.

the problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you must believe that a red corvette could simply form out of nothing.

if you believe life originated from nothing, then you must believe that a less-complicated machine such as a sports car could also have originated from nothing.

proplog2

The brain is an "evolutionary" space. The rules of the game are the same for the flipping and flopping of our wet switches as they are for information "out" there in the real world. The brain runs its own evolutionary experiements and comes up with likely simulations. But the real world always has veto power in the form of practicality. The brain can come up with new rules but if they don't work in application to something in the physical world it is usually discarded or filed under "fantasy".

The very idea of information processing, which we are familiar with in our own minds, is contradictory to the definition of God. God doesn't need to "ratiocinate". He doesn't need to "experiment" in his "mind". And since the mind is a computational space for processing information God has no need for a mind. He (IT) is mindless. So to say that God designed something is to suggest that he did something in his mind which could influence something outside of his mind. But he has no mind.

One of the problems is that most people don't understand that creativity is not in your mind. Creativity is the result of the interaction between your little neuronal universe and the rest of the universe. If you don't have a good model of the world around you then you aren't going to come up with anything that works in the world around you.

Minds/brains are re-active. They emerge from the ectoderm of the blastula in the first few days after fertilization. They are part of the outer protective boundary function and as such they speed up re-action. Noccipetion is the beginning of pain which is the beginning of "thought".

11

"her sins have massed together clear up to heaven"

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

americans live in a dream world about the history of their country.. they just can't see the usa as the treacherous "harlot" in revelation.

how can it be said of the usa that "in her was found the blood of prophets, and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth"_rev 18:24. certainly you can't say in a literal sense that the usa is responsible for "all those who have been slaughtered on the earth" any more than you could say that of ancient babylon - "at babylon the slain ones of all the earth have fallen".

_jeremiah 51:49. the blood-guilt of both ancient babylon and babylon the great is expressed as hyperbole - exageration for emphasis.. but, isn't the usa the most peace loving nation on earth?.

proplog2

Another news item illustrating how the USA is "pushing" the King of the North.

Izvestia
April 19, 2007
WEAKENING AND CONTAINING
American policy and intentions toward Russia
Author: Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika Foundation
[After the collapse of the USSR, there were two competing concepts
in the United States regarding interaction with Russia. The first
concept entailed engagement. The second concept assumed that
Russia was a hopeless case. Now the second concept is becoming
dominant.]

The wise Chinese have a definition to describe any kind of
reality. Of late, the policy of the West (mostly the United
States) toward Russia has been defined as a "weakening and
containing" strategy.
After the collapse of the USSR, there were two competing
concepts in the United States regarding interaction with Russia.
The first concept entailed engagement - drawing Russia into the
global system by developing pragmatic cooperation based on areas
where the USA and Russia have common interests. The second concept
assumed that Russia was a hopeless case, a despotic and
imperialist power, and proposed to finish it off by continuing
Cold War policies and across-the-board confrontation. Both these
concepts, shifting in and out of the foreground by turn, came
through in American policy during the Yeltsin era and after Putin
took office, regardless of what was happening in Russia.
Engagement was dominant after September 11, 2001. But now the
second concept is becoming dominant - confirming that the Chinese
conclusion is correct.
This year alone, Washington has produced a number of
decisions, laws, and official statements that demonstratively
contradict Russia's vital interests or aim to elicit a predictable
negative reaction from Russia. The year opened with Russia being
accused of pursuing an energy imperialism policy with regard to
Belarus in the transition to free-market price formation -
although the West had earlier insisted on higher energy prices for
Minsk. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued for a defense
spending increase on the grounds of unpredictable situations in
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea; in effect, we were included
in the "axis of evil" for the first time. And the decision to
deploy American national missile defense elements in Poland and
the Czech Republic was certainly anti-Russian. Then the US
Congress passed an act, already signed into law by President Bush,
in support of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia - also
allocating American tax-payers' money for that purpose. Few are
deterred by the fact that two-thirds of Ukrainians, along with the
Ukrainian parliament, don't want to join NATO; after all,
Washington knows best. And now a group of influential lawmakers,
headed by presidential contender Hillary Clinton, is proposing to
introduce a Cold War Service Medal.
Against this backdrop, the Russia section of the US State
Department's annual report on the state of democracy around the
world also drew extra attention. It didn't contain anything new;
similar statements were made in reports five or ten years ago. The
harsh judgements aren't as noteworthy as the frank disclosure of
America's action plan in Russia - with its declaration of direct
intervention in the political and electoral process, which is
obviously inconsistent with Russian law. Like any other country,
Russia forbids foreign involvement in elections. The US State
Department report talks of programs and direct funding for Russian
non-governmental organizations; what's more, any attempt to
counteract those programs will be portrayed as "stifling
democracy," by definition.
Among the most obvious evidence for the "weakening and
containing" policy is the West's total support and propaganda
coverage for the Dissenter March protests. For several days,
reports about the Russian fringe opposition's latest rallies took
precedence in the Western media, ahead of more important stories
like terrorist bombings claiming dozens of lives in Iraq, a
demonstration by 200,000 people in Turkey, and so on. In this
case, it's not a matter of "supporting democracy." After all, most
of the demonstrators at Dissenter March events in Moscow and St.
Petersburg are from the National Bolshevik Party: overt neo-Nazis
who want nothing to do with any kind of democracy, but do want to
fight the authorities, using violent methods and not stopping
short of direct law-breaking. That is why about 150 people headed
by Kasparov the chess-player - people who preferred to block
traffic by marching in a non-permitted area rather than rally in a
permitted area - were arrested and fined 1,000 rubles each.
Current events are strongly reminiscent of the Soviet era,
when our country's press focused all its attention on the
activities of communist movements in the West: their marches,
their meetings, and the harassment they faced. So our citizens got
the impression that those communist movements were very powerful,
and that there was a lack of freedom in the West. Clearly, the
Dissenters in Russia today are no more numerous or popular than
the American Communist Party was several decades ago. Yet the
Other Russia coalition's conference in mid-2006 was attended by
two US deputy secretaries of state and several Western
ambassadors. When the West gives such open backing to an
organization with a strong neo-Nazi component, almost zero voter
support, and an inclination to use force outside the boundaries of
the law, it becomes obvious that the West has really decided to
sort us out.
Until now, there may have been some doubts about attempts to
stage an Orange revolution scenario in Russia during the upcoming
elections; but I, for one, no longer doubt this at all. Attempts
at engagement with Russia have been abandoned, and regime change
preparations are under way. How realistic is this threat?
The likelihood of an Orange revolution actually happening in
Russia seems minimal. The preconditions simply aren't there. Putin
isn't Kuchma: he is popular, strong, and doesn't suffer from a
shortage of political will. And Kasparov is no Yushchenko. In
fact, none of the Dissenters are even one-twentieth as popular as
Yushchenko was in 2004. If an Orange crowd demonstrates in the
streets of Russian cities, it will always be the smallest - far
smaller than even the communist crowd or the nationalist crowd,
let alone the pro-Kremlin White-Blue-Red crowd. Last weekend's
demonstrations made that clear.
And Washington's overt support for the Dissenters isn't
really helping them - it's more like the kiss of death, given the
low popularity of the United States in international public
opinion and among Russian voters.
There won't be a revolution, but destabilization attempts
will continue, and acts of provocation will grow (as Boris
Berezovsky has promised), while Russia's image will be attacked in
the global media networks. We have to be ready for that - and the
Russian authorities need to grow a thicker skin, in order to avoid
externally-imposed unlawful regime change that would doom Russia
to weakness and disintegration.
The only point I really don't understand here is why the
United States has taken it into its head to make an enemy of
Russia. After all, Russian citizens won't appreciate (to put it
mildly) such crude, awkward, and obviously hopeless attempts to
"bring happiness" to Russia.
The Russian economy has never been in better shape. Russian
citizens have never been so upbeat, ever since opinion polling
began in our country. Over the past year, for the first time,
polls have indicated that over half of our citizens think that
Russia is moving in the right direction. But that appears to be
precisely what displeases so many.

See what's free at AOL.com.