by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
What we can all agree on is that people who sincerely think a hand-grenade is a haddock are dellusional. That's not a difference of opinions, that is a difference of facts.
Only if you attempt to take the "hook" out of it's mouth in a crowded room...
Get well and take it easy, Cygnus. I am just too blunt and opinionated at times. I pray that you feel beeter soon...
Rex
Abaddon,
Delusional is the insistance one can prove a subjective experience or belief without or in oppostion to any facts. Believing you had a subjective experience, and knowing that you cannot prove this without facts is not delusional. Believing that you can disprove a subjective experience is delusional (at best you can cause a reappraisal ("I never realised helicopters could do that, damn, it wasn't a UFO")). Believing that there is true objectivity is also delusional. [edited for spelling]
Spot on! That is exactly what I have been arguing. You said in one paragraph something that has taken me three pages worth of posts to fail to communicate. Now I am embarrassed . I suspect English is not your first language, which makes my inability to communicate that even more depressing . Go ahead, verify my suspicion, I can take it .
LOL!
Respectfully,
OldSoul
LittleToe:
The only thing I find a little strange is the general consensus among sceptics to bash that which they haven't experienced, even though so many folks are telling them something similar...
Why do you think so many skeptics bash your beliefs in the same way, even though they've never met?
Only if you attempt to take the "hook" out of it's mouth in a crowded room...
That's the real danger of irrational beliefs though. They cause people to behave in an irrational manner, often with fatal consequences.
Spot on! That is exactly what I have been arguing. You said in one paragraph something that has taken me three pages worth of posts to fail to communicate. Now I am embarrassed . I suspect English is not your first language, which makes my inability to communicate that even more depressing . Go ahead, verify my suspicion, I can take it .
Old soul I understood the point you were making if it's any consolation.
Now I've got some fish to deliver to my local KH
Abaddon said:
Too general a statement? Have you READ some of your posts?
>>Ha ha, yea I do that too<<
Anyhow, you are stating that eyewitness testimony is reliable. That is "too general a statement" too.
>>Let’s limit that to Paul’s defense of the risen Lord in 1 Cor. 15.<<
I said this: The question is this, do they contradict one another regarding the same specific incident? Then I said: If they appear to do so, can they be reasonably reconciled?
You replied: Well, if we look at the supernatural incidents described in the life of Jesus, yes, actually, they do contradict each other regarding specific incidents.
You replied: Define 'reasonably reconciled' and explain how one can guard against belief making one too likely to accept a half-plausable explanation about accounts of Jesus' life differing, when one would laugh at the same explanation offered over a similar discrepancy in a story told about a politician today.
>>Again, you are getting away from specifics. Reasonable reconciliation of gospel accounts is what an apologist does. Critics point out alleged inconsistencies and apologists show that there is a reasonable explanation for the citations.<<
You said: So, are you saying you put your beliefs regarding god in the same catagory of reliability as of those people who saw little grey (or green) men?
>>You know that was not the point of the comments.<<
You said: And, yes, Allah is the Muslims word for god (it is not a name), but in this case it falls under the statement "Even those who encounter the same deity are often given different instructions" that Derek made.
>>Ah, I said that is there name for God. I did not say it is the same god, no more that Baal, Astarte or any other pagan diety. I would also argue that the evidence of their god being the ‘one, True’ is without merit. Why is that? NO miracles, NO prophecy and NO historicity of Mohammeds assertions.<<
You said: Have you got an explanation for differing instruction coming from the 'devine' if all claimed instructions from the 'devine' are from the same 'devine'?
>>Obviously not. But then, that is not my point.<<
You said: Or do you believe there are different 'devines' or heirachies of 'devines'?
Or do you believe one can accurately filter the messages from the 'good' devine out from all the messages put out there by the 'opposition' to the 'devine'. If so, how so?
>>When Christians seek the ‘will of God’, they are supposed to compare that alleged message or understanding with the Bible. Does it line up with Biblical text that is in context? There are no new revelations. The sacred canon is closed and the manual of mankind has been complete for many hundreds of years. That is one reason that you saw me taking Jgnat to task. I honestly believe that she is picking and choosing her beliefs out of context.<<
You said: If so, how does one explain (if there is a single devine) how belief and outcome are inextricably linked to place of birth and upbringing. How does one explain the lack of fairness if the devine has a deterministic judgemental attitude towards our behaviour even if we don't know the right 'devine' but think we know the right 'devine'?
>>Please sort this out in a single post and I will try to answer it for you, ok?<<
You said: What makes your beliefs different from a man in a loin-cloth with a bone through his nose sacrificing a chicken to a rock? He would likely claim similar subjective experiential validations, historical origins and validations of belief as you.
>>You are again making an assumption that has no merit. The case for Christ is overwhelming. Why not read something like Lee Strobe’s ‘Case for Christ’, ‘Case for Faith’ or maybe Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ (1 & 2)? They are real apologists and make a very good case for Christianity.<<
You said: Please accept my apologies if you are dressed in a loin-cloth with a bone through your nose and have or intend to sacrifice a chicken to a rock. I am not criticising animists, just pointing out how little difference there is between an animist and the Pope (mostly clothes).
LOL, I don’t support a lot of the Pope’s assertions either! I haven’t dressed in a loin cloth since I was in my thirties and the idea of anything pierced in my nose give me pain. I wouldn’t let my wife ‘ring my nose’ either! LOL
Rex
That's the real danger of irrational beliefs though. They cause people to behave in an irrational manner, often with fatal consequences.
Yes, that sadly is sometimes true, but like most things there is the opposite outcome, many of the greatest success stories are born of "irrational" beliefs, that one is capable of fill in the blank (inventing, achieving, etc.) something that everyone tells them is impossible. Everyone around them is telling them they are nuts, delusional, irrational, you'll never do it but they choose to ignore the skeptics and the naysayers and go on to accomplish whatever they were told was impossible.
Caedes: Old soul I understood the point you were making if it's any consolation.
Dammit! Then, why didn't you rephrase it for me, like Abaddon did? Sheez, I tell ya', some friend you are!
Seriously, I feel consoled. Thanks.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
FunkyDerek,
Why do you think so many skeptics bash your beliefs in the same way, even though they've never met?
I think it is because disbelief in reality extending beyond our physical reality would cause very similar thoughts to arise in defense of that disbelief. These arguments are not lacking in rationale, so they proceed along similar lines and eventually end at similar conclusions on similar bases.
Unlike experiences had by subjects from cultures as varied as someone who lives in the Okeefenokee swamp and a Tibetan monk, inductive reasoning follows rules of thought. Skeptics are, to a person as far as I know, of a scientific bent and all use the identical method for arriving at conclusions. Group Think tends to produce predictably similar results from those subjected to it.
They may have never met in person, but there is unqeustionably a meeting of the minds among them. The source of this Group Think is filtering every experience and account through the Scientific Method, which is self-limited to exploration of physical reality. Therefore, the opinions such persons would have of anything that falls outside their paradigm would obviously be similar and their arguments against would all derive from the box they have put their thoughts in.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
They may have never met in person, but there is unqeustionably a meeting of the minds among them. The source of this Group Think is filtering every experience and account through the Scientific Method, which is self-limited to exploration of physical reality. Therefore, the opinions such persons would have of anything that falls outside their paradigm would obviously be similar and their arguments against would all derive from the box they have put their thoughts in.
skeptics? agree? don't make me laugh. We don't agree on anything.
