by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends
Given the Lord of the Rings
The Lord of the Rings is a fiction fantasy book, the author of Lord of the Rings makes no claims that the book is non fiction The Bible contains legislation, history, poetry, music, wisdom, prophecy, and eyewitness testimony from many non fictional and historical characters about the existence of Jehovah and more. Although the Biible is falsifiable it has not been debunked unlike the book of Mormon and other books
So let's say that someone here wants to start a thread about Lazarus or Jesus or Superman (who from what I understand died and was resurrected). They believe in it and want to discuss it with others that believe it too. Why can they not get a pass? Why would someone need to go to that thread and tell them they're stupid? Do we all have to believe the same, or is it just that some people get off on putting the beliefs of others down?
I don't think you can hide behind this being a religious discussion forum when there are threads about lots of topics having nothing to do with religion. Some people want to discuss religion, some evolution, some circumcision, some a mixture of all three, whatever. And let's also not call all of the threads here "discussions" when it is more or less people that already have their mind up going at one another and not listening to the other.
But if they make statements of fact, like claiming somebody was raised from the dead, and if they claim their belief is based on evidence, then that evidence should be challenged. Statements of fact don't get a free-pass because they are labelled as "religious".
Why are you the fact police? Why do you think anyone cares what you have to say in the first place? They don't owe you anything. Why do they have to admit to you that their beliefs are just that, "beliefs"? Does that somehow make you feel better? Do you get off on belittling others and making trying to make them feel bad about their ignorance? I don't get it. Are you simply on a quest to cure ignorance and create a society that sees everything like you do and admits that the evidence supports you view? If they don't, which seems to happen often on here, what's the point? Who did you help? Where's the payoff?
And again, "you" in this instance doesn't just mean cofty. I believe in a God at this point in my life. You won't change that. This thread won't change that. You see things only in terms of man's discoveries of the physical realm around us and I think that there is more to life than that, something bigger going on that man can't measure with instruments. So what's the point of trying to convince me otherwise? You will fail. You're wasting your time and mine. That's why I chimed in early on and then exited this thread. I don't need to prove anything to you because my beliefs are mine and don't need your approval.
I've seen you personally post several times that you could prove the nonexistence of the Christian God. I asked you to do so and you never did. I also asked you the question about love and whether you or anyone else could prove its existence, which nobody can do conclusively, yet we as humans believe in the power of it. No progress was made on either front.
So, once again, this discussion is pointless and the only value truly produced is to those that are looking for something internally out of these discussions. Nobody is changing their mind. It is a futile discussion for most. Maybe someone out there takes something away from it. And, since I'm not, it was probably a mistake to jump back in this. I really don't care enough to argue with people for nothing.
Dubstepped - so you know about the kittens????? Thank you for saving my sanity, really. My kitty has been transmitting this message for a longtime, thank you for opening the subject up....i feel safer around my particular cat god.
And thanks for saying what you've said - really, I really love hearing different positions, and it's a real pity when decent writers just bail out because they tire of name calling.
I believe. Yep. That's been my position even through the angry, fury years of my non-religious teens .... Somehow I sensed that I was a very tiny part of a much bigger picture.
Look, there are many places on the net where I/any of us can read and perhaps engage in interesting and thought provoking discussion - but I kind of hope this site keeps open to people trying to think, not just always following books.
They have an important place as the recording of human thoughts, discussions etc....but surely nothing is ever static.
Reading books by men of our age and believing they were 'truths' is what got me into the Watchtower mess in the first place - and I suspect many others fell into that trap.
I'm open to hearing the thoughts of other posters......And yes, I choose to believe. And it's OK.
I don't believe it is a futile discussion. It's because of discussions like these that I woke up to more than TTATT. I woke up to The Truth About Theism.
And my life is much more peaceful, satisfying, fulfilling and vibrant due to waking up.
I refuse to trade one form of slavery for another. I am a moral person because I want to be, not because I want to please some guy in the sky that might destroy or torture me if I mess up.
When I was a kid, perhaps 5-6 years old - back in the early, early 60s - I would sit in our coal shed.....and play imagination games, or just sit and watch.
I'd sit in the pitch black inner of this coal shed and watch the shafts of light which pierced through the gaps in the old metal roof.....and I'd quietly watch the motes floating in the shafts of light - and one day I'd thought of their presence in that shaft of light and I remember wondering if I maybe were just a mote in someone else's world, someone else's coal shed..... I guess my baby mind was trying to make sense of my space, presence.
You know, as puny as that childish thought was, it has kept me thinking through my years.
Time.... How do I understand time? Why is it, I can grasp the concept of eternity, time not being linear - even if it hurts my wee mind, I can imagine and taste the sense of time not being time at all, at least not as I experience it in daily life on the world stage. And this all goes back to my primary school coal shed days, before I was exposed to any concepts that are 'factual' or can be explained.
I'm nobody, but my little child heart and Inner life magnified then and magnifies now when I stretch out to this kind of contemplation. Resounding space.
And you know, we do believe what we choose to believe.
That's all I can offer Juan.
Do we all have to believe the same, or is it just that some people get off on putting the beliefs of others down?
Itis not improper to expose someone's deceitfulness or to discredit someone and it is not improper to show how ridiculous a belief is and it is not improper to challenge someone's belief and request that they support their views and it is not improper to debunk erroneous thinking and fallacious conclusion with logical arguments and other evidence and it is not improper to ridicule assertions with established facts that show otherwise, but if a persons is just fixated in believing in something religiously in-spite of being show facts that mythesize his position, it gets to the point that one has to move on and any further discussion with such deluded person in pointless (asssuming that you put facts where your mouth is sort of speak). On the other hand liking your views more that someone elses do not invalidate the views you do not like and neither does views disprove views -this is common sense. BUt there is nothing wrong to have your views about someone else's views either.
Cofty - I think you're suffering from the principle of people not valuing what they don't pay for. You have provided painstakingly referenced and researched information while dealing with the full gamut of attacks from all parts of the irrational spectrum. You may not be a professor in a university nor get employ as a lecturer but as someone who has both the life experience and depth of hard work and research to share your ideas you are outstanding.
Outlaw paid you a compliment without even realizing it - if he is now obsessing to the extent that he is parsing forum posts to look for attack points with the help of a 'Teacher with a Masters in Linguistics' you know you're posting some pretty awesome stuff - and if the best this teacher can come up with is ad hominem comments well D- for him and A+ for your posts. I'd return Outlaw the favour by parsing his posts with experts in his field of cartoons but my kids are at school.
Its hard to engage in a serious discussion about whether another being exists with superior knowledge than us ( a very valid and intriguing question) if faith keeps getting in the way. How can we expect rational logic to allow an interchange of ideas and tests if its constantly having to deal with unquestioning beliefs in Santa,Ra and Hogwarts. To present possible proofs of a God is a laudable aim IF one is willing to accept that the proof may well not hold up. Everybody has a right to share ideas but nobody's ideas get 'a pass' - even one's including kittens! The quickest way to drive to a conclusion is not to decide what that conclusion is before we start.
Evidence I once used for proof of God:
I would be fascinated if we could provide some real testable evidence for something that if true should produce so much testable phenomenon. I have yet to find any. I am so far unable to find one description of a supernatural God and its evidences that doesn't fail when critically examined. I have no desire to destroy belief in a malicious way but I do want to understand how this universe works and I let faith cloud my perception for too long to fall for that again.
Firstly I was aware of Cofty and Outlaws differences of opinion on past threads, so I gave Outlaw a thumbs up for what I presumed was his compliment to Coftys critical thinking skills.
Anyway back on topic, ultimately I think we must accept that each individual has their own understanding or experience of what constitutes " God" or " Proof of God's existence" Could i therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom that is the indestructible nature of reality and all life, then could we not agree there is the scope for accepting God?
That is the best answer I can come up with for proof of Gods existence, and I am sure iam guilty of having made libellous statements that will be pointed out to me from both sides.
Finally I would like to remind everyone in this court room, that we are all ex-witnesses and guilty of having once had the " truth". Therefore personally I feel I cannot pass sentence on any posters sincere point of view, but I would add I have found some of the comments, shall I politely say sensational.:-)
The Rebel
