soon...very soon...super soon...super super soon...If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things...Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated...soon...very soon...
Saintbertholdt
JoinedPosts by Saintbertholdt
-
15
Scottish Convention Revelation!
by The Searcher insome circuit overseer gave a talk and made this statement - "jehovah will very soon resurrect millions of people.....".
"soon" is so old hat now - "very soon" will become the new buzz words in j.w.-land..
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
Ever wondered
by NoIdeaWhatToBelieve ini was very hooked on the rc videos, really interesting to watch.
i started questioning stuff a couple of months ago.. however there is still a scenario that makes me wonder.
considering the israelites as god's chosen people and the kings as anointed, the bible shows many bad decisions the people made, including the rulers that were anointed.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
Hi there NoIdeaWhatToBelieve,
the Bible shows many bad decisions the people made...but they remained chosen for a long time...Can this be the case now? [With regards to the RC hearings]
This could conceivably be the case. However the organization has a history of mistakes and even willful deception spanning over 100 years. These errors, omissions and deceptions stack up over the decades and eventually one has to wonder on what conceivable basis God could have chosen the Watchtower organization.
Now as you mentioned the book 'Crisis of Conscience' would be a good place to start.
For the 607 BCE controversy 'The Gentile Times reconsidered' is a good read if you're into ancient archaeology and Watchtower biblical chronology.
For how the Watchtower organization derived its authority from the year 1918, 'Captives of a concept' is a good book. It goes into what the organization actually believed in 1918 and how Jesus could not have chosen the Watchtower organization at that time.
-
39
Why I have renounced Atheism and become a believer again
by cantleave ini have always said that if a god showed itself i would follow the evidence and renounce my atheism.
i have now seen enough to start believing again, i am so happy, i feel a inner contentment, when he connected with me i really knew it was him.
if you are not a believer you will not understand this, but trust me, look at the evidence, open your heart to him, let him in and your life will change for the better.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--"
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
I agree! I would argue that Agnosticism is the default position since we are born that way.
Dawkins is probably the biggest atheist out there, but according to his own atheist scale, he doesn't even rate himself as a 7. In God delusion he rates himself a 6 because as a scientist he still has to remain open to the possibility of a God (beardy man). Agnosticism is part of atheism, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the individual.
His scale:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
C0ntr013r,
I don't know, the claim was that the OPs God cant exist. I don't know what God Saintbertholdt interpreted that to be, maybe God in general?
In threads of this nature I believe only one type of God applies:Oubliette
Carl Sagan had this to say about that:
- The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. - As quoted in "Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
C0ntr013r,
You can say that misrepresent your arguments or your statements.
Perhaps I am. However I have tried to be as clear in my reasoning as possible regarding my point of view.
It reduces to the following:
1. 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is used everyday as a part of scientific discovery.
2. One does not consider a possible cause for which there is no evidence as a valid contributing factor.
3. One always remains open to new evidence.
So going full circle to title to the Topic of this thread: Labeling oneself Atheist is unscientific.
How can the label of atheism possibly be unscientific when it is applying part of everyday scientific method?
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
BOC,
POTATO2015.RE.INCROYABLE.KARLMARX.BANANA.UNCLEFESTER
I believe this IS crazy enough to be potato :)
Village Idiot
I have never read 'The coming of the fairies', but now that I know about it I will have to.
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
freemindfade,
We used to look up and see a comet and say the gods were riding by and bringing some natural disasters... the people who didn't believe were persecuted for heresy.
I use fairies specifically because there are old books, folklore and tales that abound with them.
Just as tales, old books and folklore abound about god.
They both claim extraordinary powers and both have influenced human thinking to some extent.
As you point out sometimes things just don't make sense. (like the existence of fairies)
This is the result of humanity becoming more rational and less superstitious.
-
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
Saintbertholdt
1. So how did belief enter science?
2. How did scientists get to that belief?It did not, that was my point.
C0ntr013r,
So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.
You didn't answer the second question: How did scientists get to that belief/non-belief (insert whatever semantics you want) So let me answer it for you: Fairies are not considered a part of pollination because there's just no evidence for it. Its wasteful to include it in ones thinking when dealing with the subject and you certainly do not explore it when drawing conclusions.You rather look for causes that reasonably explain a phenomena.
And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.
So what is it then because it is used in science every day?
Could it be that it forms a part of the technique of scientific investigation?
So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.
In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however. That is why science remains open to new evidence. It is not dogmatic.
Now you can argue that 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is the most valid course in life for your own special exceptions. Some people choose god, others ufo visitations, yeti's, the lochness monster or any combination, but everyday practical science and discovery does not ponder absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Rather it focuses on what can be proven through following tangible evidence.
And at this particular point there is no mathematical or scientific model that even remotely hints at god. Never mind any sound physical proof.
Science does not ponder god just like it does not ponder fairies.
Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.
Atheism - scientific.
