Posts by Saintbertholdt

162

Do you still believe in God?

by FormerlySandL in

i never thought i would admit it, but i don't.

i might superstitiously have some kind of doubt but digging a bit deeper in my heart i really don't believe in god.

as a human i could never just sit and watch people be tortured, live years of abuse, suffer from illness and disabilities and all the other awful things people have to endure day after day without doing something about it.

Saintbertholdt

Hi Acts5v29 you wrote: ""Man cannot survive without God's help"

Aren't humans clocking over 7 billion and climbing?

At this point that's the one thing we seem to be good at.

Besides that, were he to intervene, then one religion / race / nation / side would claim they had received his blessing, and other sides would only fight to avoid looking small.

Wait a minute. Didn't He do that already with the Israelites? So He has no problem with the idea.

More importantly... if God were to intervene, then the adversary could claim legitimately that God broke the rules in order to win, and taint Him as ruling by cheating.

But according to the Bible he had not problem intervening when it suited him. That's until modern recording equipment was invented and then he totally disappeared. Seems He's a bit camera shy.

162

Do you still believe in God?

by FormerlySandL in

i never thought i would admit it, but i don't.

i might superstitiously have some kind of doubt but digging a bit deeper in my heart i really don't believe in god.

as a human i could never just sit and watch people be tortured, live years of abuse, suffer from illness and disabilities and all the other awful things people have to endure day after day without doing something about it.

Saintbertholdt

2+2=5 you wrote: I've currently no faith, so let's start with God. What's his name, where does he live, and how can I contact him?

Joe Pesci. Hollywood California. Via his Facebook fan club page. He might not answer though, he's usually busy

162

Do you still believe in God?

by FormerlySandL in

i never thought i would admit it, but i don't.

i might superstitiously have some kind of doubt but digging a bit deeper in my heart i really don't believe in god.

as a human i could never just sit and watch people be tortured, live years of abuse, suffer from illness and disabilities and all the other awful things people have to endure day after day without doing something about it.

Saintbertholdt

Hi FormerlySandL,

Its a huge thing in ones life - letting go of a personal God. For myself I was pretty bewildered at first. I then experienced all the stages one would expect during the process: Anger, sadness, depression and later finally acceptance.

Then the fun started: I got to try to figure out my purpose in life and what its meaning is. It was the first time I could really start to seriously poke at the big questions and I was allowed to come to my own conclusions. I have never looked back.

In reflection there is still one Biblical saying that I give serious consideration to: The truth WILL set you free.

Only this time I get to decide what truth it is and what it means to me.

27

What's the purpose of being a JW now?

by MrTheocratic in

with all the recent changes to this religion, what really is the purpose of being a jw?

especially for those who have been in and witnessed all the changes and still no sight of the end.

for these ones in particular (35-55 year olds) they must be in a state of confusion.

Saintbertholdt

jookbeard you wrote: "...how many eccentric, neurotic,narcissistic types have we seen over the years in our jw life"

Well I'm still eccentric - check. I'm still neurotic - check. And I'm still a narcissist - check. This is all very troubling. I'm going to have to do some self re-evaluation.

What's the purpose of being a JW now?

Counting hours? Perhaps getting some new gear like an iPad?

I think the old answer is still the best answer: universal afterlife insurance.

35

Do todays Jw's care at all about Russell and the pyramid?

by olongapo joe in

just wondering, as i will be visiting active jw family in ohio in a few weeks, do you think it will be worthwhile dropping it into a conversation, about the wtbts pyramid near his grave, or try some other topic to try and wake them up.

i was never baptized and don't really care if they get upset or not, but it is only a day trip from ohio to pittsburgh, and thought it would be fun if they denied it, and then drove their to see it for ourselves.

Saintbertholdt

When I was a JW I hadn't even heard about the Pyramid in connection with the 'Divine Plan of the Ages' or the Russell grave site pyramid. If I had known about it then I certainly would have raised an eyebrow especially considering it was still believed when Jesus did his supposed survey of the earth in 1918 to choose his faithful slave.

olongapo joe you wrote: "...and then drove their to see it for ourselves."
Take some pictures and post them on JWN or it didn't happen :)

Hey punkofnice you wrote: "...Anything he did was just seen as an imperfect man 'doing his best(tm)'".
My answer to JWs in this regard is: So does the Pope. And don't give me that he's infallible shtick because that only counts when he's making a Papal decree. Its like when the governing body meets they transform into (G)uardians (O)f (D)octrine. Power rangers assemble!

34

Seven Trumpets of Revelation

by Zico in

i read on here that the society teaches that the seven trumpets of revelation are representative of seven conventions held in america in the 1920. is this actually true?

is it old light?

i asked some witnesses but they all gave me a look like i was weird and said it couldn't be right, and i can't check the watchtower library as i can't get it on my computer (apparently the society doesn't think mac users are worthy of the 'good news') i mean... it would be a bit...odd, wouldn't it?

Saintbertholdt

As an old post suggested: That second trumpet blast was pretty much off key.

"Millions now living will never die etc. etc."

I would categorize it as the greatest Brown note in the history of earth.

34

What do you think is the source of your consciousness? Can it be copied or transferred?

by EndofMysteries in

this seems to be a question that even scientifically is still in the air.

right now your consciousness, is it the physical part of the brain?

the electrical signals in the brain?

Saintbertholdt

I read about Stephen Hawkings discussing copying our brain and into a robot to live forever. But lets say that happened right now, your brain was copied and put into a robot...Your consciousness would be dead.

And to which Village Idiot added:

Your original you is disassembled into atoms that get transported to another location with an identical, but not original you. The act of disassembling your body is tantamount to death.

From which the following conclusion can be drawn:

Stephen Hawking does not posses consciousness.

58

Mind Body Dualism

by Coded Logic in

i've never found dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it.

to show the reasons why i think it's bad metaphysics i'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".. for hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world.

but they still can't explain where ecosystems come from.

Saintbertholdt

I have a possible answer to consiousness:

Self awareness and consciousness requires at least two computational systems in feedback with each other. The awareness is not generated by each separate computational system but rather by the feedback loop between the two that is actually a measurable value but which is the product of a time differential. The feedback loop IS the awareness but is dependent on the existence of the two computational systems. Self awareness is thus dependent on anatomy but is actually also effectively ethereal.

Just a thought.

58

Mind Body Dualism

by Coded Logic in

i've never found dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it.

to show the reasons why i think it's bad metaphysics i'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".. for hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world.

but they still can't explain where ecosystems come from.

Saintbertholdt

That we are at the stage where problems with the prevailing materialist view are becoming more apparent, but that a viable alternative has yet to emerge.

I have already addressed that because as I indicated: "Holism or emergent properties are useful in describing new things in simple rule based ways even if we don't understand the underlying levels below this new thing. HOWEVER reductionism fills in the gaps and shows that there exists a continuum in this universe"

An example: Suppose you're a scientist and you're working in a less studied segment in the radio wave spectrum. Something doesn't quite add up in your experiments and you're getting higher energy outputs than the existing mathematical models predict.

Now there are two ways you can go about this (assuming you've re-checked and then re-re-checked the results to eliminate the possibility of experimental error):

1. You can use reductionism to try and understand exactly whats going on OR

2. You can explore this new discovery and try and figure out how the rules work (Holism).

Number one is much slower than number two but gives the most satisfactory explanation.

Pursuing option number two means you don't care about the full explanation because you're assuming there is one, and you're more interested in what the new rules for this discovery are. As you discover the new rules you start asking questions like: What can one do with this new discovery? Could this lead to a whole new field of inquiry?

Both methods are important in science. One is more methodical, the other is more exploratory. Both have elements of the other. Either is valid, it purely depends on who you are and which one is your preference. You might even try and do both at the same time.

58

Mind Body Dualism

by Coded Logic in

i've never found dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it.

to show the reasons why i think it's bad metaphysics i'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".. for hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world.

but they still can't explain where ecosystems come from.

Saintbertholdt

...Because ultimately it must affirm the conscious mind simply not exist at all (eliminative materialism).

How very Buddhist of you to reason like that. However as Cofty has pointed out:

I have never encountered anybody who denies consciousness. That is different from saying that consciousness is a property of our brains.

I have posed the following question to SlimBoyFat in a previous thread: 'What is the alternative to Science?' I'd like to simplify it a bit more by restating the question in different language more appropriate to this thread: What is the alternative to reductionism?

Slimboyfat didn't answer me but if it was me that had to answer this question I would look for the answer in the opposite of reductionism, in other words Holism.

But Holism (The whole is greater than the sum of the parts) is already included in reductionism in the form of emergent properties. So Holism just forms a part of reductionism.

Footnote: To see emergent properties in action see the software: Game of Life (golly 2.6) and how emergent properties can be generated using simple rules.

But how is Holism useful? There are very good examples of this in scientific history. Historically Chemistry was being probed and prodded independent of Physics. The rules were discovered of how chemicals and compounds interact and today there are libraries full of these chemical heuristics. Yet today we accept that Chemistry is at its most base Physics. This means that chemical reactions can be described in terms of physics alone. Yet this makes explaining even the most basic chemical reactions a complicated affair. So chemists tend to stick to the discovered rules or emergent properties.

So what am I saying? I am saying that Holism or emergent properties are useful in describing new things in simple rule based ways even if we don't understand the underlying levels below this new thing. HOWEVER reductionism fills in the gaps and shows that there exists a continuum in this universe:

Mathematics -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Organic Chemistry -> Systems Chemistry -> Biology -> Ecology and so on (There are many sub categories which have been left out to maintain clarity)

Slimboyfat: Do you want to know more? It goes much deeper than this.