What is accepted as the "truth" is the result of who holds power in any given society/discourse/conversation. It has nothing to do with what is really out there actually in the world. It's nothing more than bullying: "this is my preferred story, and you better accept it or else you are an idiot." Dress it up with talk of "evidence" and "facts" and "proof" of this and that, it all boils down to power play and one group trying to assert the dominance of their discourse over others.
MAYBE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ
by Bloody Hotdogs! 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
WTWizard
And, assuming joke-hova really wants to enslave us, would it make sense for that thing to actually tell the truth? Rather, it would lie and try to confuse us all, preventing us from understanding anything and threatening to destroy anyone that finds and spreads the truth. In doing this, joke-hova makes us more dependent on it for information--which is as likely false.
Science, properly done, is free from this bias. If done without bias from the Establishment, science can unveil things. Of course, when the Establishment wishes to enslave us, it can pull many a Jacob-style scam by falsifying things, and even threaten with death and discreditment those who actually tell the truth. Those scumbags doing that personify the worst of Tyrant David, Scam Artist Jacob, Destroy Every Gentile Nation Joshua, and every other scumbag in the LIE-ble. And religion.
-
Vidiot
slimboyfat - "I think there are better reasons to reject JWs than because what they believe isn't 'true'."
So do I.
There's a shit-ton of reasons why I faded, and all of 'em were higher on the list than doctrine.
-
snare&racket
My apologies.....
-
Captain Obvious
SBF: wrong again. What is considered "truth" is different for different people. Not everyone is privy to all of the same facts and information, and not everyone observes said facts and information from the same or even a similar viewpoint. A truth that is "Truth" for everyone all the time would be an absolute truth, something I'm sure you would agree is impossible.
When someone criticizes another's beliefs or acceptance of facts, it is not as much because they disagree with their own beliefs, as much as pointing out the inconsistencies of of someone's supposed "truth".
I believe something to be true because at this point in my life, with the information that is available to me, this is the decision I have made on the matter. If in the future something changes, I will have to be willing to consider that as well or else become willfully ignorant. When I have become ignorant, my viewpoint and opinion on "truth" will no longer be of any value.
Right now SBF we are criticizing your views because we see flaws in them, not because they oppose our own. To criticize you because you don't agree with me would be to give myself way too much credit. If you point out reasonable flaws in my reasoning, I am forced to reconsider my view.
-
Captain Obvious
Perry: that's good, I'm glad for you.
A few years ago my dad got one of those "magnetic bracelets" you can buy online. Two weeks later he is telling me about all of the benefits he gets from this wonderful bracelet! His shoulders and elbows aren't sore, he can lift more than normal and he had his season's best golf score yesterday.
Of course most rational people know "magnetic therapy" is a scam, but his claims are real. Does that make them true? We know his bracelet is real, and we know that it isn't making a lick of difference to his health. We can prove this, and in turn we can disprove his claims.
We do not know that god is real, and we also don't know what he would do if he were. Your claims are real, but they are not provable. You cannot prove god is real, and you cannot prove he has any effect on your life. To claim so would be circular.
My dad's claims, though disprovable, are more valid than yours.
-
LisaRose
Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.
Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “Vishnu is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in Vishnu as unscientific.
Scienntific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “Allah” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in Allah as unscientific.
What nonsense, you could say this about anything. I believe in The Great Pumkin, and he is a spirit, so you can't prove he doesn't exist, so you are arrogant to say belief in him is scientific. I can't belief I used to read things like this, nod my head and think "yes, that's right"
-
snare&racket
Science works.... That's how we know it is the most useful method yet identified, if you know better, show us..... You will change the world!