the intellectual laziness in jh, ks & follo...

by elke 61 Replies latest jw friends

  • elke
    elke

    the words: intellectual laziness
    recognize this trait? Ahhh,many who apostasies from the one truth, shall we say ,adopts this trait-and transforms into epitomies of intellectual laziness...they construct the premise there is no true god to mislead others...they proceed to construct arguments to support these prefabricated conclusions with the building blocks of false logic...they convince intellectually lazy individuals the odds of a creators existence are remote...a lie recognizable to any form of honest intelligence.
    Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. explains why God refuses to provide irrefutable proof in his existence on the web page http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/proof.htm - "Although it isn't stated directly in the Bible, God seems to prefer a balance of evidence: there is enough reason to believe if we want to believe, but not enough to intellectually force belief against our will. Instead of overpowering us with undeniable logic or mighty miracles until we grudgingly give up and give in, God wants us to want to come to Him. With this balance there is authentic free will, and the choice is primarily made not by intellect, but by heart and will. A balance is also needed for developing the "living by faith" character so highly valued by God. In a world where it may seem justifiable to be intellectually agnostic, God wants a non-agnostic faith, a total spiritual commitment, a true repentance followed by a complete trust in God that is manifested in all thoughts and actions of daily living."
    the jan hauglands and kent steinhaugs of the world are condemned because they will not accept any truthful conclusion that points to a true god...because they are, how shall we say, far too lazy to expend energy building spiritual commitment ,true repentance and complete trust in God that is manifested in all thoughts and actions of daily living..their own contempt for a perfect system that governs a peaceful world thus condemns them..and their intellectual laziness is, shall we say, the shovel that digs their graves.
    Dr. Rusbult continues "Yes, Evidence is Available But authentic faith is not blind faith; it is not "trying to force yourself to believe what you know is not true." Strong evidence for Christian faith can come from three sources: recorded history, personal experience (first-hand or second-hand), and science. History: The main basis for Judaic and Christian beliefs are the historical claims recorded in the Bible. Personal Experience: God can interact with individuals to supply personally customized evidence for His existence and activity; or we can talk with other people, or read what they write, to share in their experiences and thoughts. Science can also provide evidence to support theistic beliefs."
    all this is coming from a Ph.D. who is likely far more educated than jan haugland, kent steinhaug and thier cohorts combined...these sorry individuals who claim they are above it all have been debunked by someone with a real education at a prestigeous university in his speech at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/proof.htm
    -elke

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    Hey elke,what happened to Bob,He was way funnyer than you.And when are you going to start using a bible that dosen`t suck,Any other one than the one you got will do...OUTLAW

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    Sorry. Moses wouldnt take action until he had a direct face to face and talked over his issues with God. Same here. If God wants me He can come talk it over anytime.If he wont do that much, as Conan said:
    "To hell with you".

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    I get suspicious when someone precedes an argument with the word "fact".

    Hmmmmm

    Cheers,
    Ozzie

    "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
    Anonymous

  • Skeptic
    Skeptic

    elke,

    I find it interesting that the type of Ph.D. is not mentioned. Being well-educated in one area does not mean a person thinks clearly in another area. Nonetheless, maybe the Ph.D. is in something relevant to the article. Or maybe it isn't.

    If this article is an example of being intellectual in proving that God exists, then atheism has nothing to fear. Most of it was simply assertions, with no facts backing the assertions up.

    Elke, perhaps you would like to explain to my poor, unenlightened brain how that article proves God exists.

    I find that fundies like the born-agains and the JWs are quick to question the motives of atheists, but rarely provide examples of clear reasoning on why God must exist. Most of the posts on why God exists only serve to show all how befuddled the poster's reasoning is.

    Your post is a fine example. Full of insults, and only a link to so-called proofs. No reasoning of your own displayed. And the link providing the proof proves to be a link to no proof at all.

    If you disagree with me, please show in your own words how part of that article proves God must exist.

    Richard

  • larc
    larc

    Elke,

    Your essay is one of the finest examples of intellectual laziness I have ever seen. After a brief introdution of slander, you cut and paste somone else's work. Now, that is lazy. The person you quote has a PhD. So what? Where did he get his education? What is his specialty? What are his scholarly works, if any. Because he has a title, does not mean his ideas are valid. Anyone of us could cut and paste an oppostion statment from a dozen well known academics. Bertrand Russell comes to mind, for example.

    You see, many of us have considered your point of view in great detail, plus a whole hoste of other view points over a period of many years. We are far from lazy. In the future, I think it would be wise if you avoided terms like: lazy, lie, dishonesty, and prefabricated conclusions. Your style of writing, greatly diminishes your credibility among the sophisticated posters here.

  • ofcmad
    ofcmad

    First things first -

    Elke:
    I have a problem with your reasoning. When I started to read your post, I came to the same conclusion that Larc has. Then I read this:

    FACT! The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures properly uses God's name 237 times ( http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_06.htm)
    You cannot logically reason this by referencing the proof to the author of the book.

    Secondly:
    Skeptic:

    I find that fundies like the born-agains and the JWs are quick to question the motives of atheists, but rarely provide examples of clear reasoning on why God must exist. Most of the posts on why God exists only serve to show all how befuddled the poster's reasoning is.
    Let me say that I'm a "born-againer" and don't question motives of atheists. Other then moving through life, the best they can, like all of us on earth, I don't think there is some satanic motivation to "influence" others not to believe in God. If you got it, you got it. If you don't you don't. People who "lose" their "spirtuality" by becoming an athiest, didn't have one to begin with. No offense, but obviously people who became athiest, couldn't connect to a "supreme being". Facts to prove God exists, I don't have any. Proving the history of the Bible, imo, doesn't prove God exists. You can call it blind faith if you want, I call it gut feelings. No more then me having a gut feeling when I'm walking my usual beat. That's the only way that I can describe why I feel the way I do. Obviously, if you read some of my posts, you can see for yourself that I am not the most articulate soul in the universe. I'm definitely not a "sophisticated poster".

    Ofcmad

    "Noah was a drunk and look what he accomplished." The Metatron/ Dogma
  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    So this guy who believes in god has a PhD, huh? A "real education at a prestigeous [sic] university?" And you believe his ropey argument because of this?
    You block quote from a source that supports your beliefs and make a very poor attempt at an argument from authority and you have the gall to accuse us (OK, I wasn't named but I'd like to think I'm included as one of the "cohorts" )of intellectual laziness? You seem to be too lazy even to check your spelling or punctuation or to come up with arguments of your own. Here's an idea: when Jan or Kent or their "cohorts" post something you disagree with, post something showing the flaws in their arguments or the invalidity of their facts. For those who want to know more about the amazing Craig Rusbult PhD, here's his website: http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~crusbult/methods/bio.htm

    --
    Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire

  • Erich
    Erich

    Elke:

    This was one of the best articles I read in this forum.

    The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. I'm sure, in a few years all types of scientists (philosophers, physicists, even mathematics..) will intellectually overwhelm such guys like haughland, steinhaug etc., but also - surprisingly(!) many members of JW's organisations who were proved as hypocrites.

    The science will prove the existence of GOD !

    "The very zeal of Jehovahs of armies will do this" (Isa 9:7)

  • larc
    larc

    Erich,

    You confuse me. You call JWs hypocrites regarding a belief in God.

    Why?

    Also, what did you find to be so profound at that cited website? I checked it out and there is not much there.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit