Death is not something to be feared!

by iconoclastic 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  Iconoclastic: Science can explain HOW of things, but it cannot explain WHY of certain things

  I completely agree with your thread title. It caught my attention. But you lost my by the fourth word of your long, convoluted and rambling essay, which did not--as far as I could tell (and, yes, I read the whole messy thing)--support your thesis.
  

  You clearly do not understand what science is, how it works or what it does and does not attempt to know, understand and explain.

  You might find this thread helpful in understanding science:

  The Philosophy of Science

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  rebel8

  So nobody's going to call out the OP for the misleading quote of Sagan? Ok, I will.

  OP said: I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue.

  Sagan said: I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. "In the Valley of the Shadow", Parade, 10 March 1996
• 

  Oubliette

  Rebel8, thanks for giving us the context of Sagan's quote.

  I knew there must be more to it. The OP contains many examples of WT style misquoting: selectively taking a quote out of context to make it appear to say the exact opposite of what the author intended.

  Clearly a deliberate deception.
  
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  rebel830 minutes agoSo nobody's going to call out the OP for the misleading quote of Sagan? Ok, I will.

  Yeah but OP quotes Durant in the very next sentence after Sagan. Sagan would not disagree with the sentiment:

  "In the end, nothing is lost. Every event, for good or evil, has effects forever.” (Will Durant)."

  So even if the quote has omissions, OP does not use the Sagan quote to prove he believed in an afterlife, rather the Durant quote completes Sagans thought in that he is actually still living on today. His words, thoughts and actions still echo forever,

  At least that's what I took from the closing paragraph.
• 

  cofty

  OP = Cultish pseudoscientific bullshit.

  Viv had it spot on with her first post on page 1 and got a load of dislikes from people who know nothing about science and prefer it that way.
• 

  steve2

  Thanks Rebel8 for providing the context of Sagan's quote. It is not at all unusual for "believers" to gleefully seize upon a partial quote of an unbeliever and use it to bolster their particualr story. I note that some posters praised the OP - and I wondered if I had read the same OP.

  I had.

  It is a sad case of people so desperately wanting to believe and be reassured that anything resembling "reasoning" will do. The OP seems not to even know what Philosophy has to say about "why?" questions and then proceeds to respond from a narrow frame of references from possibly one of the most bizarre books ever put together, "The Bible".

  It could just as easily be a reference to the Koran, the Book of Mormon or some other revered "Holy" book.

  As Richard Dawkins said, People's religious beliefs are almost always an accident of birth.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  By the looks of the all the sudden thumbs up for icon supporters and number of thumbs down for everyone against his ridiculous reasoning is very different to how it was just a week ago, I would assume the kid has a few more accounts now. Looking back on his threads this is just way off "the usual".
• 

  ListlessWitness

  Article 18

  Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

  Just saying.

  We are all at different stages in our journey since discovering TTATT. Is it really helpful to dismiss anyone's belief in pejorative terms? Or are some still hanging on to the witness way of trying to pull the religious rug out from under people with beliefs that do not match our own? That this life is all there is, not an easy thing to accept. It is like realising you have been handed a death sentence after years of doing what you thought was right to avoid it. Those that have accepted it come across as bitter and determined that no-one has the right to an alternative view. I find that bizarre. If an open mind makes me more sensitive and mild towards those who are struggling with their death sentence, I do not consider that a bad thing. Or a weakness of mind or intellect. Just recognising that all of us are in a different stage in our journey and defending each one's right to take that journey at their own pace and with their own thoughts. Many of us are mourning the loss of the best decades of our life and find the rich variety of opinion in this forum comforting. What reason have we to be harsh to others when we do not know how vulnerable they might be?
• 

  Ruby456

  iconoclastics quote of what Carl Sagan said is not so misleading imo because it is very clear that Sagan is expressing a wish in that short quote. And if truth be told he does not fit easily into either atheist or agnostic category as he was open to knowledge being provisional and contingent

  His position was the strictly scientific one: Knowledge is always provisional and contingent upon further data.
  

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/
  
• 

  Viviane

  Carl Sagan WAS strictly scientific. The quote was 100% out of context and purposely misleading. If anyone has any doubt of that, they need to read "Demon Haunted World"