FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  I always had trouble with that circle/sphere thing. I know my shapes. A circle is NOT a sphere, and if you look at the horizon, then you get the idea that the earth is a circle. I ignored it because I was trying to believe them (jw's), and it was such a great example to be able to use of advanced learning and authority of the bible. But it never sat right with me.

  Zid - I get what you're saying about the difference between living up to the teachings of Christ, and ignoring scientific discovery that might conflict with what you believe. Some of it might be ignorance. But at the same time, some of it is disillusionment with science asserting something that later turns out to be untrue. So from some people's pov, why should they toss aside their cherished beliefs for a theory that experience shows them is subject to change. (on any topic)

  You can't completely blame a person for being disillusioned when their doubts are not without merit.

  At the same time, passing something in the bible off as fact, and blaming others for not being able to believe it without evidence, is unfair to the non-believer as well.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  ziddina

  Um - huh, I think I see what you're saying, Tammy...

  But it REALLY bugs me when faith-based people dismiss out-of-hand the vast amount of scientific evidence, without really looking at the information themselves.

  I've been looking at geology, paleontology, archaology, anthropology, paleo-anthropology, astronomy, and geophysics since I was 5 - looking at it, becoming somewhat familiar with the evidence for the above sciences. That means I've been reading, doing field trips, going fossil-hunting, and so on, for over 50 years.

  For a faith-based person coming into it stone-cold, that is a DAUNTING amount of research... Enough to make many people just throw up their hands and exclaim, "Well, I'll just stick to what I 'know'...!"

  Oh, and I just HAD to respond to your "Peace", with this:

  "We come in peace... We come in peace..."

  ZZZZZAP!!!

  

  Zid the She-De vil...
• 

  Maze

  Gee, I wonder why...

  Realize this; if the Hebrews conceptualized the earth as ANYTHING other than a flat platter or plate, they could have created a new word or borrowed a word meaning "sphere" from a nearby civilization...

  And since they DID have a word that meant "ball", then IF they conceptualized the earth as being "ball-like" then they ALSO COULD HAVE USED THE WORD FOR BALL.

  Face it. The Hebrews had the same primitive, INACCURATE view of the earth's shape and nature as did the "heathen" nations around them...

  Before the earth was discovered as a spherical planet, most ancient societies believed the earth was flat and square.
  
  With Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27, the evidence for the sphericity of the earth in Scripture is circumstantial. In any case, these verses serve to illustrate that a spherical earth is not inconsistent with the Bible.
• 

  tec

  I hear you, Zid.

  Oh, and those guys used to be the best part of Sesame Street :)

  (unless I'm confusing my puppets, lol)

  Tammy
• 

  ziddina

  "Before the earth was discovered as a spherical planet, most ancient societies believed the earth was flat and square.

  With Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27, the evidence for the sphericity of the earth in Scripture is circumstantial. In any case, these verses serve to illustrate that a spherical earth is not inconsistent with the Bible. ..."

  Yes, 'special' knowledge of a spherical earth IS inconsistent with what the bible states... But you get to believe what you want to believe, anyway...
• 

  JonathanH

  5 minutes before bed. Just a quick note on "circle of the earth."

  The ancient babylonians and egyptions thought this was the earth (They are ancient maps, the bottom is a translated replica of an ancient egyptian map).

  

  Notice, They are circles. Because they believed the earth was a flat circle. So you have the hypothesis that the hebrews were inspired to innaccurately, but sort of close to right describe the true shape of the earth, imperfectly calling it a circle rather than a ball. Or that the neighboring cultures had a degree of information exchange through war and slavery that the hebrews would share their concept of a flat circular earth. Which is the more sensible explanation?

  Also, on the "innocent until proven guilty", it is completely irrellevant if it doesn't always work in an imperfect court system. In a debate of reason you do not assume something is true until it is disproven for the reasons already discussed. The a priori assumption of something being true before it is demonstrated such, and then demanding that it is to be assumed true until shown it is not, is a big logical no no.
• 

  ziddina

  Thanks for posting that, Jonathan! Interesting...
• 

  still thinking

  ziddina....so what I am hearing you say is that because you have 50 years experience in this field...you cannot be wrong? And you know all? Have you ever considered that you have come to this conclusion because you based your reasoning on evolution being true?
• 

  wobble

  I studied the bible for more than fifty years, I pre-supposed that it was true, but when I considered all the evidence I realised it was not.

  The same could have happened to Zid with Evolution. The fact that it has not, that whatever evidence he considers still supports evolution, regardless of whether he started out thinking it was true or not, means that evolution is a sound scientific theory.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  This is why you then have people being released years after the fact that have proven their innocence. They have proven they are not guilty.

  Sorry, the evidence has eventually proven that someone else IS guilty. You can try all you like, you it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. For instance, you still haven't proven that House isn't real despite your claim that you could.

  The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime.

  Completely untrue. There are many documented cases where someone was tried and convicted to prevent someone else from doing it, do save someone else, for the color of their skin, etc.

  You have to remember, belief has little to do with facts.

  Now, can you or can't you prove that House ISN'T real?