by AGuest 197 Replies latest jw friends
*Forgive me for asking, but why is it okay for "you" to think "you" might be wrong... but not others (outsiders)?? Sounds a bit like religion to ME...
Subliminal text, Shelby?
I'm not sure I understand the question, because I think it's ok for others to be wrong too. I think we're all wrong. It's just a matter of degree. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with independence of thought.
Subliminal text, Shelby?
Nahhh, more of an afterthough, dear one (again, peace to you!)...
I'm not sure I understand the question
It's based on my experience where, if I were to say, for example, "I think scientists are wrong about such and so"... well... oh my gosh: you'd think I'd suggested crucifying Richard Dawkins... ummmm, Christ. The basis would be, "Well, YOU'RE not a scientist and so YOU don't know... nor can you PROVE them wrong... so who are YOU to even say such a thing?!" Which is most probably true (although, I did say "I THINK").
However, it appears that someone else can say, "I think these scientists are wrong about such and so" (here, the subject of the article)... and it's entirely acceptable. Although they too are not scientists... don't know... and can't themselves prove the scientists wrong.
because I think it's ok for others to be wrong too. I think we're all wrong. It's just a matter of degree. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with independence of thought.
Yes, dear one. My comment didn't include you, not at all. While you and I may not agree on "everything"... and see some things [quite] differently... we allow one another such independence [of thought]. I've never pegged you as a hypocrite, dear Nick. I don't think you have such a bone in your body, if the truth be told. Hypocrites, however, are not limited to the religious (although, they often represent the lion's share).
Hope that clears things up and, again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
The reason why I allow myself the luxury of giving scientists the right to be wrong and the religious ( everyone who believes in magic ) the right to know they ARE wrong is simply down to qualitative evidence. Ask for evidence from a religious person and you get bluster and waffle - sometimes pages of it - ask for evidence from a serious scientific study and you get observed results - sometimes pages of it.
AGuest - I do read a lot of what you post - not all (I only have a few minutes here a day) and you actually only have one core message presented in many flavours, dripped in faux love for people you do not know and enclosed in slavery pretensions - you agree with science when it suits you but your first love is magic and your magic is far superior than either science or the institutional magic of organised religion - you write a lot and say little (to me).
:) Ooh I'm in a catty mood this morning.
Having given you a deep frying I'm sure it will roll of your back like water and a duck (I hope so - I'd be gutted if anyone was actually upset by anything I would spout) I sat and tried to think what it was about you'd said that raised my hackles and I think I have it. Instead of posting the article with comments about how exciting / interesting this could be and asking what people thought the ramifications were; you posted it to promote a gap for your God, your 'spirit' was one of Hurrah at last a chink in the evidential armour of those smug atheists' and a 'see - you don't know the truth unlike me who will proclaim how much I know the TRUTH each time I post'. In the end you tried to critique scientific thinking by pointing out what science is at its heart ( a scientific enquiry that never shuts the doors), used it as an attack on skeptics and then laced in your sub text about how you know the ultimate truth which you dangle , evidence-less for us fact lovers if we would just crank our open minds a little bit wider.
AGuest has made many posts over the months that seek to discredit science. The idea seems to be that If the argument for belief in scientific theories can be weakened, then the argument for belief in religious theories can be strengthened, by t ipping the balance.
Interesting stuff, but to make this an even playing field we have to ask where the source of information came from. If a scientist declared a new understanding based on a voice that he or she believed to belong to an invisible being with whom a friendship had been made, more evidence would be required before the scientists personal belief could be taken seriously or accepted as of value in establishing truth.
All the above being said, this will be a great milestone in humankind's history if it turns out to be true because it will open up areas of understanding and application we can only dream of, or not even dream of because the opening is so vast. It is for that reason that the entire question and any new theory that arises needs to be ruthlessly challenged. This is either the dawn of a new era or just a new error.
Qcmbr - in essence, you think Shelby is saying 'HA HA... you're wrong, here is the proof.' She isn't doing that, but lets say for the moment that she is. Is that not what (many) atheists do every single time something in science or archaeology seems to discredit something pertaining to religion or faith?
"Ha Ha - science has just proven that the universe is billions upon billions of years old. So much for your seven day creation." or "Ha Ha - evolution is a fact! So much for your 'Adam and Eve'... so much for your God..."
Well, it is to those people that Shelby is mainly addressing when she does question an absolute stance on science. (including making an absolute stance on whether or not there is a god, spirits, etc...) Especially since we know that science is always changing as we discover/develop different tools to learn more. Science could well begin to discover and understand things that we currently consider metaphysical or superstitious or "magic".
Gladiator, it isn't the science Shelby has a problem with, nor is she trying to discredit it. Instead, it is the people who treat science as an infallable religion. So much so that they will 'Ha Ha' all people of faith and/or religion with their 'facts'. Those people are close-minded... because one thing we should know by now is that those 'facts' are not set in stone. None of us know what we will discover in ten, a hundred, a thousand years. Something someone described two thousand years ago (or longer) might very well have happened... they just might not have had the scientific language or means to describe it as we would now... or a thousand years from now, etc.
Most people of faith are just as thrilled about new scientific discoveries and what they might mean, as people without faith.
Peace,
Tammy
I liken this... ummmmm... process... to something I've shared with others over the years. It's as if I am standing on a very high ladder/ledge... looking down on a great stack of films. The films are somewhat thin, so I can see all the way through and there is an image at the very bottom. The problem is that the film is not fully clear... and so the image is somewhat distorted. Thus, sometimes, I THINK I "see" what it is. But as each layer is peeled off, I realize that the image is not exactly what I thought it was (indeed, sometimes it isn't what I thought I saw, at all!). With the help of my Lord (who TELLS me what I am seeing), though... I tend to see the image a bit more clearly that, say, some others. And so, each time I get a little piece of information, it's like a film has been peeled off... and I can see the ultimate image yet more clearly.
Oh, and I meant to tell you, Shelby (peace to you), that I do see what you're saying here. Good analogy, perhaps because I understand what it is you're describing. Seeing in part, then getting a little more, and seeing a little more, until the picture is revealed. Like having most of the pieces of a puzzle, and 'seeing' more each time a piece is added. As if you've been told what the picture IS (and you trust that), but you don't see it 100% clear until all the pieces are put in?
Peace,
Tammy
One can't descredit sceince, science is what it is.
Scientitsts however, are a different matter of course.
It seems that science and religion do indeed share a very similarity:
Humans, LOL !
It is quite possible that Einstein or any other scientist made a mistake but that doesn't equal science making a mistake but science doesn't do ANYTHING, it is the name we give to a collection of thoughts, views, facts, laws and hypothesis.
Lets not blame science for being wrong since science can only be what MAN is at that given point in time.
The reason why I allow myself the luxury of giving scientists the right to be wrong and the religious ( everyone who believes in magic ) the right to know they ARE wrong is simply down to qualitative evidence. Ask for evidence from a religious person and you get bluster and waffle - sometimes pages of it - ask for evidence from a serious scientific study and you get observed results - sometimes pages of it.
I absolutely agree, dear Q (peace to you!). However, I am not religious, not at ALL... and kind of take issue that you and others keep lumping me in... while getting YOUR chonies in a bunch when you perceive me as lumping YOU in. I do not ascribe to religion, at ALL. And if you ask me for evidence as to what and who I believe in... you will NOT get bluster and waffle... but an invitation to call/meet me so that I can share such with you. As I have posted before... many have made the challenge but very few have followed through when I say, "Okay, call me/meet me."
AGuest - I do read a lot of what you post - not all (I only have a few minutes here a day) and you actually only have one core message presented in many flavours
One message... one flavor. And neither have changed from the day I arrived here.
dripped in faux love for people you do not know
I beg to differ. My love is neither fake nor for those I do not know. The love I have is directed to all, generally, simply because they are fellow human beings. I don't have to know them personally to have such love for them. If I saw YOU laying in the street... or standing outside a store with your hand out, LOVE... would prompt ME to try and do something. Not wait for someone else to do something... or give my money to someone else so that THEY could do something, instead of me. I can look another's need in the eye... and personally act.
I also have love for those I have come to know... not necessarily because I have met them face to face... but because of their words to me and others posted here and elsewhere. Or through their voices on the phone. Through these, I often get to "see" the person behind them... and my heart overflows. I am not so empirical a being that I can't love, say, a penpal, unless/until I see them face to face. I can fall in love with someone by the SPIRIT they show me, the man they are on the INSIDE... which they present to me through their words... even if I NEVER see the man on the OUTSIDE. I am sorry for YOU... that you apparently are only able to love those you have had the privilege of meeting in the flesh. I am sorry... because there are SO many people that you will NEVER so meet... and so never love. I will not restrict myself in such a way, dear Q... because it would be MY loss.
As for those whose words are so... ummmmm... gracious... I can love those, too... because I KNOW my own words aren't always gracious and yet I want their recipients to give me the benefit of the doubt. That I didn't INTEND an offense, but only spoke MY truth... which I perhaps didn't temper properly. I am just as fallable and imperfect as the next person, so who am I to hastily take offense... and lose my love for someone... simply because they misspoke... or don't know how to address another without being provocative/aggressive/a jerk. Who am I to decide that I am so much "better" that such person isn't DESERVING of my love... me who KNOWS, as a woman, African American, [ex]JW, etc., who knows how it feels when people WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU... don't love you because of some false perception THEY have?
I have not completely erradicated my own "dirt" from my own heart, dear Q... but I'm working on it. Starting by trying not to judge others for THEIR dirt... giving ALL 100% of my respect from the start... as well as the benefit of the doubt... and showing all love, to the greatest extent I can. Do I always succeed? Of course not. But WHATEVER efforts I make... they are absolutely genuine. THAT... you can take to the bank.
and enclosed in slavery pretensions -
No pretention... and if you knew me, you would know that. Having a "servant" mentality is not difficult for me. You forget the culture I come from... and perhaps the people I was raised by. It's actually quite easy for me, sometimes even natural. I was taught from a very young age that there are people on the planet [who think they are] "superior" to me. Some of it I learned from my parents (not directly, but through what I saw them go through during the Civil Rights era). I learned more of it as a middle school student, being the only black person in all of my classes and having teachers who resented my presence. I could have fought with them... which would have gotten me, what? I learned, however, that they treated me "better"... when I acquiesced to their "superiority." I didn't always agree with them that they WERE superior (indeed, I often disagreed), but, well, they apparently needed that from me.
So, when my Lord showed me that in order to be "great" with HIM... I needed to be "least" in relation to all others... I understood that. And I learned that, even if others DON'T get it... I get it: it's not a form of mock humility - it is humility - which I learned from a very early age. I had forgetten it, as I got older, became a bit of a rebellious teenager and more... ummmmm... assertive... adult. But I didn't lose it all.
As for the label I PUT ON MYSELF... I do so to remind MYSELF... of who mankind belongs to. In order to take care with them. If I were to forget that... and since I am as fallable as the next person, I well could... I might begin to take offense... or become "abusive" toward God's sheep. To prevent that from happening, I give MYSELF a reminder... each time I communicate with someone here. I wish them peace, from the start... to remind me to take care and choose my words carefully... I end with a wish for peace... so that I am reminded again... and I close as Christ' slave... so that if there is anything that I need to be aware of IN MYSELF... I am reminded of it.
That you have a problem with that, however, is... well, flabbergasting, to me. If I posted as "An apostle of Christ"... which would also be accurate... you would take offense at that, as well. But why, either way? YOU don't believe in Christ... so why do YOU have a problem with what I call myself? Why do YOU care? Because, as with others like you... it resounds with you... and raised the question in YOU: why HER and not ME? But I cannot answer that for you... other than to say, why YOU... if you don't even believe in the One who would call YOU such? You're like the little children in the market: it wouldn't matter what I called myself... it would offend you. Because you CHOOSE to take offense. That's on you, Bub.
you agree with science when it suits you
Ummmm... no. I agree with science when (1) science makes sense... and (2) when science has FULLY proven what it wants me to believe. And both of these are actually quite easy for me because, as dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!) has often posted... it isn't in conflict with what my Lord tells me, but actually corroborates it.
but your first love is magic and your magic is far superior than either science or the institutional magic of organised religion
What "magic"? Magic has no explanation. What "magic" have I EVER shared here... and what have I ever shared WITHOUT EXPLANATION?
- you write a lot and say little (to me).
Yet, you apparently have a lot to say to ME... even if it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted...
:) Ooh I'm in a catty mood this morning.
Yes, you are. Why? I asked regarding what is "truth"... and I have issues with both science AND religion on this matter... but you seem to have taken my... ummmmm... confuzzlement... about this personally. To the point where you've not only attacked, but made some pretty serious personal accusations. You don't get me? No problem; I don't really get you, either. But I don't take issue with you PERSONALLY... because I don't perceive YOU as any kind of threat to what I believe. YOUR beliefs are a non-issue for me.
Having given you a deep frying I'm sure it will roll of your back like water and a duck (I hope so - I'd be gutted if anyone was actually upset by anything I would spout)
First, please be assured it will roll of my back. Surely, you realize that you are not the first to make the accusations you have... and won't be the last. If I let the words of folks like you get to me for more than, say, 10 minutes... I WOULD be crazy. Technically AND literally. But please don't do what you accuse me of doing... and that is be ingenuine. You are intending to upset me (read your words, dear one - they are general but very specific and directed specifically at me... in an effort to make ME feel "gutted". C'mon, Q... your "leaven" is showing...).
I sat and tried to think what it was about you'd said that raised my hackles and I think I have it. Instead of posting the article with comments about how exciting / interesting this could be and asking what people thought the ramifications were; you posted it to promote a gap for your God, your 'spirit' was one of Hurrah at last a chink in the evidential armour of those smug atheists' and a 'see - you don't know the truth unlike me who will proclaim how much I know the TRUTH each time I post'.
It is quite interesting to me that that's what YOU read into my post. First, it WOULD be QUITE exciting/interesting to ME... because I would deem it one step closer to understanding that PERHAPS there ARE things beyond the physical world... that we DON'T know about, yet... that would HELP folks "see"... what I have heard and seen. THAT is absolutely exciting and interesting... and the ramifications are WONDERFUL!
Even so, I stated WHY I posted it: I saw an article and, given my previous questions as to "what is truth"... that have still gone unresponded to even in this entire thread... wanted to put that out there again. Is truth what IS... even if we don't KNOW of it (yet)... or is truth what we SAY it is... based on what [we think] we KNOW... at a given time? That is ALL that you should have responded to, if the truth be told, dear Q. The rest was a mass of red herring-ness, sprinkled with ad hominem anecdotes. And I have to say, I truly DO expect a bit more from the so-called "intelligent" on this board. What I usually GET, however, is a whole lot of post-WTBTS "you don't believe like we do, so you're an idiot" like responses. You can take the little boy out of the WTBTS... but apparently you can't take the WTBTS out of the little boy.
In the end you tried to critique scientific thinking by pointing out what science is at its heart (a scientific enquiry that never shuts the doors),
I didn't even critique science, dear one. I critiqued, as I have previously, the PRESENTATION... by science-BELIEVERS... as to what is "truth."
used it as an attack on skeptics and then laced in your sub text about how you know the ultimate truth which you dangle , evidence-less for us fact lovers if we would just crank our open minds a little bit wider.
I think you should go back and read what I posted... WITHOUT the "glasses" of "I already know where she's going, so I don't even need to read it" that you apparently have on...
AGuest has made many posts over the months that seek to discredit science.
Sigh. No, dear Glad (peace to you!)... and if you have that impression I think that at this point you might have to ask yourself why that is. Because I have made many posts over the months that seek to ask WHY science does the SAME thing as religion... in presenting what is "true"... while having problems with religion when it presents in the same way (i.e., "truth is what WE think/believe it to be... given (whatever it is we base it on) at a particular time... and if WE don't know of it (yet)... it isn't truth"). I... do... not... see... how... that... is... different. For NOW, science says the "truth" is that "nothing is faster than the speed of light." IF, however, science shows that there IS something faster (and I am NOT saying there is)... was "nothing is faster than the speed of light" the TRUTH?
The idea seems to be that If the argument for belief in scientific theories can be weakened, then the argument for belief in religious theories can be strengthened, by tipping the balance.
Oh... my... gosh. There IS no "strengthening" for religious theories. Religion is a FALSE light. However, science, while MUCH more accurate as t the things IT theorizes about... is not ABSOLUTELY accurate all the time. In that "light"... how can it say what is the TRUTH... when the matter isn't/hasn't been fully known??????
Interesting stuff, but to make this an even playing field we have to ask where the source of information came from. If a scientist declared a new understanding based on a voice that he or she believed to belong to an invisible being with whom a friendship had been made, more evidence would be required before the scientists personal belief could be taken seriously or accepted as of value in establishing truth.
That may be; however, would the scientist CARE what such others took or accepted... if he/she DID so hear? True, most scientists set out to empirically prove their theories... SO THAT others will take them seriously/accept the theory as of value. But not all do so for that reason. Many do so for their own satisfaction. Some, however, can't prove their theories... within their own life times. Does that stop them from sharing/professing them? Not to the entire world, perhaps, but surely among their "intimate" circles.
In addition, some have had theories that they DARE NOT share/profess... because it would shake up the status quo. Perhaps even get them persecuted, if not killed. So they keep such to themselves. Others do not care of the risks, however, because they KNOW... what they believe... is TRUE... REGARDLESS of who believes them or not.
Given that even scientists undergo these situations, I am, again, kind of... well, taken aback, if not shocked... at the "outrage", character assassination attempts, snipey barbs, anger, repudiation, etc., coming from those who deem themselves so... intelligent. To ME, it smacks of religion. Even of the hypocritical words that the WTBTS used against the RCC:
"A bigoted group of men who systematically endeavor to throttle all Bible teaching unless it comes through them." Proclaimers' Book, pg. 70
In the same way, rather than encouraging thinking beyond the flesh... or at least leaving those who do to believe as they will... some respond in EXACTLY the same way AS religion... particularly as it did when scientist/philosophers/astrologers of old questioned THEIR long-held beliefs. "Impossible... and you're practicing 'magic'!"
Tell me, please... how in the WORLD is what happened here any different to what happened to those who thought "outside the box" back then?
I bid you peace, dear Q, and you, too, dear Gladiator. Because that truly is the kind of person I am. I can't fake it, as you should be able to tell by my posts. I am what I am, how I am, who I am. That is all I can be... and that is enough for me.
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
PSac - almost completely agreed with you.
Tec - No. I tried to make it crystal clear what I think AGuest is saying. Sorry I will try harder to make it clearer next time.
Evolution is perhaps the single most proven mechanism there is so somewhat ironic that you should use that to illustrate in comparison to the bogus 6 day magic / post flood wizardry fairytales to explain species.
Evolution as a mechanism is proven, it has been observed occurring and it will not be overturned though new change vectors will be discovered.
The ultimate laws of physics however, are less well understood because of the difficulty in constructing experiments on the microscopic and macro levels. Physics at the human observable level is very well understood (Newtonian laws account for most observed behaviour while Einstein filled in the majority of the gaps). Even though we may or may not have found particles that can travel faster than light under certain circumstances we still know that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light - that observed rule still holds.
Atheism is not built upon the speed of light or upon the way change occurs within reproducing species. Atheism is based upon a rejection of magic. That atheism uses scientifically discovered principles to provide counter argument to the bat shit crazy is to be expected since simple observation , logic and rational thought aren't enough to persuade the gullible or proud that they are invested in sillyville.
Belief in the untrue is as powerful as belief in the true if suicide bombers and forum debates can provide any yardstick.
To a religious person like AGuest or Tec or me several years ago imaginary beings are real and no evidence is required, just emotional commitment and a tangible, painful fear to avoid confronting the obvious.
