I freely reveal my name to people who PM me, in general. I don't use my real name on forums for the afore-mentioned reasons, particularly work related.
Posts by Spook
-
117Roll Call !!! I am going to reveal my name, anyone else DARE?
by Leprechaun inroll call, just as it is written i am not afraid what can man do to me.
my name is shane draney i live in ogden utah, i am supposed to be going to the roy city congregation but i am not going to so there!
but you never know since i was raised in it, its been hard to shed drinking the cool aid.. .
-
-
-
16
The Problem of Evil, "Free Will" and Questions of Morality
by gubberningbody injw's say that god has only the limitations he himself has placed upon himself and that he keeps faith with himself.. they further say that all evil is the result of the challenge to his sovereignty.
the time man's experienced evil is to the end of proving the rightfulness and righteousness of jehovah, his way of ruling and that he didn't create defective creatures with free will, but rather the defect was their own - they chose evil.
other things subsidiary, to these but contingent on them too.. .
-
-
Spook
Narkissos,
God take on the positive/negative sin issue. The tradition here might differ from the content, IMO, but again I'm no theologian. The point being the unique theology of JW's in which humans were supposed to live forever on earth is not compatible with other things, ergo the internal contradictions.
Generally by "fully rational" philosophers are talking about things such as...
1...achieving the beings highest priority or else the optimal mix of non-maximizable priorities (not doing things unintentionally).
2...perhaps, not having mutually incompatible priorities
and stuff like that.
Accepting a less than fully rational God clears up many problems, as does accepting a less than all-powerful one, or one from whom good/evil are largely arbitrary extensions of His character.. Then we're sort of talking about a deistic non-physical alien, rather than the theist's God. It's only the "superlatives" which create so many problems for theistic philosophers.
Don't even get me started on how a being beyond time could possibly make decisions with respect to temporal alternatives!...
-
16
The Problem of Evil, "Free Will" and Questions of Morality
by gubberningbody injw's say that god has only the limitations he himself has placed upon himself and that he keeps faith with himself.. they further say that all evil is the result of the challenge to his sovereignty.
the time man's experienced evil is to the end of proving the rightfulness and righteousness of jehovah, his way of ruling and that he didn't create defective creatures with free will, but rather the defect was their own - they chose evil.
other things subsidiary, to these but contingent on them too.. .
-
-
Spook
Further, JW's don't often mention whether they believe God is fully rational. If he is fully rational, it is not easy to say why he would impose arbitrary limits upon himself.
-
16
The Problem of Evil, "Free Will" and Questions of Morality
by gubberningbody injw's say that god has only the limitations he himself has placed upon himself and that he keeps faith with himself.. they further say that all evil is the result of the challenge to his sovereignty.
the time man's experienced evil is to the end of proving the rightfulness and righteousness of jehovah, his way of ruling and that he didn't create defective creatures with free will, but rather the defect was their own - they chose evil.
other things subsidiary, to these but contingent on them too.. .
-
-
Spook
Good post Narkissos,
A huge problem for JW theology is answering the question of how Adam's offspring came to be imperfect?
It seems this is either genetic or else a relative position from Jehovah. If it is genetic, Jehovah is responsible for having created that on purpose instead of some other possible means of heredity. If it is just a spiritual situation of god's perspective, it would seem arbitrary to view the descendants in that way. This defeats the ransom if there is, in reality, nothing to attone for but a perspective.
If something "changed" in Adam and Eve, were they to exist, then this change either was a natural result or else a teleological choice by Jehovah. Neither of these can be reconciled with their theology.
-
16
The Problem of Evil, "Free Will" and Questions of Morality
by gubberningbody injw's say that god has only the limitations he himself has placed upon himself and that he keeps faith with himself.. they further say that all evil is the result of the challenge to his sovereignty.
the time man's experienced evil is to the end of proving the rightfulness and righteousness of jehovah, his way of ruling and that he didn't create defective creatures with free will, but rather the defect was their own - they chose evil.
other things subsidiary, to these but contingent on them too.. .
-
-
Spook
Sovereignty is the worst response to theodicy. The JW theology can rightly be said to be false because Jehovah, were he to exist, cannot possibly have the set of characteristics attributed to him. Other theists can better get around this.
-
151
God, Morals, and Atheists
by UnDisfellowshipped inmy version of the "moral argument for god": .
(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.
lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).
-
-
Spook
* The moral belief that it is good that people tell you the truth, and that it is wrong for them to lie to you.
That is neither absolute nor a value. It is perhaps a rule in the way you describe it.
I, for example, believe the "goodnes" of true information is closely related to its outcome. False information can be much better than true information.
I don't believe it is good that people always tell me the truth. At best this is something that is often or usually the case. There is a significant selection of events where this would not be the case. And even if I am the only one who has ever felt this way, I still falsify your theory.
-
151
God, Morals, and Atheists
by UnDisfellowshipped inmy version of the "moral argument for god": .
(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.
lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).
-
-
Spook
Undisfellowshipped,
My comment regarding the length of your post was more of a pre-comment concession that I was going to be brief and not fully rise to all of your points than it was a criticism of your length. By all means, speak at the length you choose.
Spook said:
"An evidential scientistic naturalism would more accurately be stated as follows:
"Since by observation most things are best understood naturally, then probably as a provisional belief, those things which lack full natural explanations due to limitations on observation are very likely natural as well."
I don't have a problem with that, but why should we accept a "provisionary belief" in a natural cause for things in which science cannot even measure, such as who or what existed before the physical Universe, and the existence of rational inference (which cannot fit into an only-physical world)?
This is an example of "Hume's Guillotine" going on (Treatise On Human Nature). My statement is an "is" statement. Your response is an "ought" statement. If I introduced normative language it wouldn't mean much unless we had first agreed on what we "ought" to do. If there isn't an absolute "ought" about what we should do, that's fine be me, I'm not defending absolute normative judgements. My statement stands as an asessment of the natural world which is almost uncontestable or at least as broadly accepted as any idea could reasonably be.
I'd prefer not to use normative language here. I'll again use a description:
1. People accept this naturalistic conclusion in most situations becuase of the function of the mind, unless they have a strong personal reason to do otherwise, all esle being equal.
2. Unless strong personal reasons to disbelieve in naturalism can be established broadly to other people, then the naturalist has no rational reason to abandon naturalism.
3. Furthermore, when categories of "strong personal reasons" can be broadly examined under naturalism, at least some strong personal reasons can be rationally rejected.
4. The naturalistic assumption can then be applied to strong personal reasons and becomes stronger if it is true that "Since most personal reasons to believe in God are either logically incompatible with the identical reasons held by others or else have natural explanations, then probably any given anecdotal reason to believe in God should be rejected.
1:) Physical matter came into existence.
2:) Physical matter could not have existed before it came into existence.
3:) Therefore, there is no physical cause for physical matter coming into existence.
The phlosophical problems with (1) flow from the lack of information and the limitation of our use of language. Here are some facts to consider:
1. That anything has "come into existance" is very different than thinking in terms of "cause." Words like "physical" tend to confuse what is at issue. For example, does your definition of "Physical" include energy? Does it include non-theistic metaphysical concepts?
2. Premise (3) does not follow from premise (1), even if premise one were true. Your usage of cause has many implications theists don't usually deal with. By cause, we generally mean that any state of affairs characterized by the set of situations {Sa, Sb, Sc...Sn} at time Tn, had a temporally prior state of {S-a, S-b,S-c....S-n} at T-n. In general, if something "had to have a cause" then it "had to have a prior state." If it didn't have a prior state, it didn't have a cause. Inserting a metapysical entity which "exists" but "doesn't exist" in any common understanding of words will always be an argument from ignorance or a case of special pleading. That the universe had some state {Sa0, Sb0, Sc0....Sn0} in no way entails that this state was non-existance. I also falsifies the claim that it could have a prior "cause."
What we know about the early history of the universe is tentative and abstract to a profoucnd degree. If the theist wants to latch on to this as some certain scientific conclusion, then by their same judgements I would hold that they have to accept biological evolution, in general. Because the latter is much better supported by any standard of evidence than any of the claims about the early history of the universe. If we can't know the latter, we can't know the former.
On the language, feeling we have a responsibility is different from a metaphysical responsibility actually existing. Feeling like we have "absolute" or "objective" moral values is different than them existing. I don't have to account for the existance of something which I don't think exists.
Further we already agreed there is more evidence for naturalism, unless you're recounting that. Your claim entails the assumption that the magnitude of one or a few lines of evidence is so great that the majority of evidence should be ignored. I have demonstrated that we don't know or can't know that.
You are still right to say
"If the universe began to exist and it is possible for something else to exist not included in the universe, then it is possible that this something is God."
But if you assume that, then it is just as possible, in this state of complete hypothetical ignorance, that any number of hypothetical non-theistic possibilities could equally answer this dilemma.
The description of "faith" or "trust" if you'd rather is your judgement and belongs in another argument. This argument could take the form of...
1. Since we all get our information from either the external environment or else existential personal experiences, we cannot be fully confident in the truth of anything.
2. Any "knowledge" claim therefore involves a degree of trust in others or ourself.
3. (For some reason) It is more legitimate to trust one's own personal experiences than it is to trust the consensus of empirical information as conveyed by others because the former involves trusting one person (yourself) while the latter involves trusting many people.
I'll leave that one.
I'll also leave the AFE, since my main contention with your criticism contained in the argument from morals has already been stated by me: The naturalist, even if absolute standards of right and wrong don't exist can still falsify the theists argument for TWO reasons:
1. He can use the theists own definitions as contained in the argument to internally falsify the claim.
2. He can argue EVIDENTIALLY from more/less better/worse in objective terms. LESS suffering is different from "no" suffering. This is stronger because then theists often have to defend why we have the "optimum" level of suffering according to God's highest priority.
-
25
Favorite drummer?
by JimmyPage inthis thread was inspired by my listening to the band mastodon lately.
i just find their drummer brann dailor amazing.
other drummers who have impressed me in the past have been jimmy chamberlin of smashing pumpkins and dave grohl of nirvana.
-
-
Spook
I've always been partial to Buddy Rich. I like Stewart Copeland a lot, too. David Grohl brought some really interesting arrangements to music, Foo Fighters being my favorite rock band. Grant from Alkaline Trio is a lesser known but very gifted drummer.
Even though I'm a drummer, it has always been tough for me to compare here. This may be unpopular, but I feel like the good drummers in any given style have a flatter curve than guitarists. By this I mean most of them are relatively close in speed, abilities and musical choices. One evidence of this is that a drummer is most capable of "sitting in" on an album. I can learn 10 songs in the time it takes my guitar player to learn one. He is much better at guitar than I am at drums (10 years for me, 25 for him).
Sorry to bash my own instrument! But since drums don't get as many effects as guitars, a lot of the "style" we recognize on a classic album is just the result of the studio approach and could have been any drummer. Many of the great drummers these days have studio players record the albums they write.
To that I add: Dave Makintosh of DRAGON FORCE!!!!
-
12
Choosing ME before WE (advise book for women ) practical & balanced ???
by caliber inchoosing me before we, the every woman's guide to life and love ...herein lies both the invitation and the challenge of choosing me before we: know yourself.
be honest with yourself.
love yourself.
-
-
Spook
The notion that relationships "should" be about self-actualization is an entirely modern one.
The history of humanity shows that for most of modern history marriage has been a practical matter or a political one. In a similar way, jobs have only recently been thought as a source of "fullfillment." This is a luxury which comes with the territory of being VERY wealthy and VERY free as a nation and culture.
I think it is sage advice to never believe your "self fulfillment" will come from someone else. If I get married it will be a largely practical one - if and when I decide to have children I'll marry someone I get along with who I think will make an excellent mother. I will not labor under the assumption of true and eternal love.
I think having a "lower" bar for relationships can actually make you happier.
That said, I think there is a variation in individual character. Honestly, I don't think I'm well cut out for marriage. I know many people who are. I'm stubborn, I don't like to compromise. I would never in my life apologize for something I didn't think was my fault. If one is less concerned with these things and more concerned with one's family, one's local community, enjoys spending time at home, dislikes being alone, does not have strong personal tastes, marriage can be better. I'm also more attracted to women who would make terrible mothers but who make excellent dates / girlfriends.
I would also recommend that those thinking about these subjects take an evolutionary perspective on psychology. It helps a great deal to try and distinguish your "instincts" from your choices and higher values. For guys, the instinct to want to bang everything in site is one which should probably be overcome to be the happiest overall. For women, I think the instinct to want or expect an emotional commitment should similarly be overcome.
At the end of the day, when I have other people in my life i want them to want to be there. I would never want someone around who doesn't want to be there. I wouldn't trust anyone who wants me around when I don't want to be there. And I can't imagine ever wanting to see someone every day for the rest of my life.
-
88
10 Years Japan losses 5,400 Publishers and 638 Kingdom Halls! Why?
by Witness 007 injapan had a handful of witnesses after ww 2....this number skyrocketed to 222,912 by 1998!
then something happened.
publisher figures didn't stop, they dropped by thousands over the next decade!.
-
-
Spook
I explained the rapid growth in some of these areas as a "Western Bias."
Some developing countries have taken to Christianity, particularly groups like JW's, partly because they get prestige in being part of a very business-like Western religion. They wear suits and ties, speak in public, carry brief cases. These are all the trappings of the Americana origins.
There is sociological research on this about why JW's are so successful with minorities in the U.S.
A lost decade of economic growth, a new sense of a modern Japan, and a quick approach to the maximum penetration of an idea in a geographically limited area are all factors to consider.
I don't think JW's will have much success in China when compared to past examples, for a variety of reasons. The age demographics, for example.