would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 196 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ExBethelitenowPIMA

    Slimboyfat “The things I know are vastly outnumbered by the things I don’t know, and many of the things I think I know I am likely wrong about too.”

    This is precisely my view. I think it’s very arrogant to be like Cofty and be so sure you have found the truth of the origin of the universe.

    My entire point of the thread was that some mysteries are best left unsolved and this makes life interesting.


  • ExBethelitenowPIMA

    No Zombie “I'd rather know, because its my nature. Sadly many people just can't cope with truth, but I can be ... while being sort of happy ... and that enough for me.

    What if knowing the truth means there is no hope whatsoever? It was all chance no purpose for anything or anyone?

    Would not being sure about that be better? Perhaps a little possibility of a hope is better than no hope?

    You mentioned the concentration camp example. If people were telling you for certain you will be worked and starved to death eventually in a horrible way. Would you hold onto a little bit of hope that maybe something will happen and you will be freed or not killed somehow?

  • no-zombie

    Well I think of it this way Ex_B ... does worrying about help the situation, even it looks really black? I don't believe so. We could be in that concentration camp together, seeing our bodies waste away from the hard work and no food We could see our friends put into the ovens or mass graves, thinking that (based on all the evidence) this is our end and ... the very next day the American Army liberates us. You just never know. Where there is life; there is hope.

    And if there is really no hope ... then there is nothing we can do about it, anyway.

  • cofty
    I think it’s very arrogant to be like Cofty and be so sure you have found the truth of the origin of the universe

    Where did I ever say that? Are you familiar with the term 'strawman'?

    To be rational means to proportion our belief to the available evidence. Some things we can be very certain about.

    • The earth is not flat
    • The moon is not made of cheese
    • Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years

    Other things we can be fairly sure about but should reserve judgement until more data is available, and many other beliefs are nothing more than personal opinion.

    SBF will not even affirm that the earth is not flat. He is a fan French postmodern Marxists like Foucault who feigned radical agnosticism as a political tool when he wasn't raping little boys. Don't be fooled by faux epistemological modesty.

    What is arrogant is to wilfully remain ignorant of the facts - you freely admit to having never read a science book in your life - and yet to voice strident opinions on the subject.

  • ExBethelitenowPIMA

    I certainly did not admit to having never read a science book in my life, in fact what I said was I read lots of books with an open mind and I like to look at both sides of the story. You seem very familiar with straw man techniques.

    You also sound like you are changing your mind slowly about the origin of the universe, are you now possibly considering intelligence having something to do with it?

  • cofty

    Please share which books that present the evidence FOR biological evolution you have read?

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo
    Joey you may be right, but that’s a pretty bleak no hope outlook.
    If you are right then ignorance is bliss.

    Between 3-4 million children die of malnutrition every year. If you could do anything in your power to change that, would you? I would, so why doesnt a loving god do something?

    Malaria, childhood diseases, etc?

    Romans 6:23: 'The wages of sin is death'. If that is the case, why do we need to endure pointless, ongoing suffering as well? Dying, on its own is bad enough, isnt it?

  • ExBethelitenowPIMA

    Joey like I said pretty bleak.

    No wonder so many people are unhappy

    begs the question is hope a good thing even if it’s possible not entirely true?

  • TonusOH

    ExB: but the entire theme is would you be happier not knowing answers and keep your blinkers on? Can you be comfortable with not knowing?

    Those seem like two different things. A person who is ignorant about the facts of a matter may not know he is ignorant. His understanding is the truth, as far as he knows. Such a person could very well be happy, if his understanding leads him in that direction.

    A person who recognizes that he doesn't have certain answers is aware of his ignorance. He can be comfortable not knowing, as long as he recognizes that those answers are currently not available. He can want those answers, but the thought of replacing the lack of knowledge with explanations based entirely on imagination would not make the uncertainty go away. On some level, once you recognize that we don't have the answers, self-deception will not work.

  • no-zombie

    If I may add my two cents worth ... there is always going to be things unknown and unknowable ... due to the very nature of man. We are finite creatures and very, very small on a galactic scale. To think that it would be possible for humans to understand everything must be the epitome of hubris itself.

    This being the case, there has to come a point at a individual and collective level, that assumptions must be made. However has history has shown over and over again, our understanding of the universe is often flawed. And being dogmatic about ideas, just become a new religion, in itself.

    Belief in the evolution of all life in the universe, by pure random chance, is a classic example of this kind of assumption making. Why ... because the evolution theory is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one, no matter how much noise people make to the contrary. Why, the whole driving force of Darwin's On the Origin of Species can be directly traced back to the Enlightenment philosophers of the 1700s and as part of the development of the secular world. Thus saying with 100% confidence that all life on Earth evolved, is a risky assumption, due to the opening premise of the movement, of which this theory has been used to support.

Share this