# ****Great need of nonsense

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by N.H. [Pravo] on October 24, 1999 at 01:05:43 {f8eW6hUOe2MNeo5UWiLAX.sgIvMbfw}:

In Reply to: ***Great need of nonsense posted by WorldlyWitness on October 23, 1999 at 17:56:42:

Hi WW,

This is more like it, nice to see that you are making an effort.

You said:

> Okay Norm, since you refuse to admit your errors, here they are!

Sigh. WW, if you read what I wrote once again I made the claim that you “believers” don’t KNOW any of these things, you simply BELIEVE it. I think that you in your “heart of hearts” know the difference. Having that in mind you are simply unable to point out any “errors” in that claim.

> The Bible is not a scientific textbook.
> Have you read Davis Young's two works on this subject? You will find that not all of the evidence is the same black/white that you ex-jdub atheists contend. Fundamental literalists make claims that are not held by the Bible's text.
> Also, science can only ASSUME that we have evolved from microbe to fish to amphibian to Furry Little Smart Rats to monkey to cro-magnon to homo sapiens. Some vital links don't exist in our family tree.

I don’t have to read Davis Young’s book to know that anyone basing their ideas about man’s origin on the Bible, do so out of belief. Even those who believe the stuff are painfully aware that the Bible isn’t a scientific book. Those who want to believe all of this are of course aware that this isn’t knowledge.

> However, even if some form of evolution has brought us about, this in no way detracts from our creation by a superior entity.

Well, you believe that we are created by a “superior entity”, so what? Have you produced any evidence of this? No! It is just something you like to believe. You don’t know it. So where’s my error?

> Again, the Bible is not a scientific textbook as you should know.
> Hmmm. My 'tree' above may not be entirely accurate but to any thinking human being they might consider this 'scientific' theory as needing just as much faith as 'old tales'.

Not entirely accurate? That’s an understatement, you still seem to be influenced by the fundies distorted presentation of evolution. Science has ideas and theories, but it doesn’t requite you to believe anything. Science relies on evidence. So where’s my error?

> This statement is a 'sweeping generalization', since you lump all relgion into the same category. Evidence in the Bible and through independent secular historical sources confirm the existence of Yahshua. The Bible and many apocryphal books found in various lands also confirm this man's existence. A case can be made for independent confirmation of some of his miracles due to these separate books of evidence. As far as being God's son, of course that is a matter of faith and cannot be confirmed.

Well, in case you haven’t noticed, religion usually deals with people who believe in all kinds of stuff. All religion has that in common, get it? I am glad that you understand the point that even though there might be evidence for a man by the name Yehoshua, it is a far cry from him being the Son of God. And since you realize that it requires faith to accept such an idea you in fact agree with me. Reread your last sentence above: “As far as being God's son, of course that is a matter of faith and cannot be confirmed.” this is great WW, because it in an excellent way sums up my original post which apparently was so upsetting to you. You finally seem to subconsciously grab the fact that matters of faith cannot be confirmed, and that is what I have tried to make you realize many times. You have indeed come a long way.

> How would you know? Is this the story that the Bible tells or not? There is some dispute on this.
> Speculating:
> Since we are very similar to these 'gods' in our make-up, is it unreasonable to wonder if we may be the products of superior beings, not necessarily omnipotent? How would 'evolutionary pressure' force simians to become highly intelligent beings who appreciate our fellow humans, animals and life giving planet? Why should any higher life form than basic animals have ever formed?

For obvious reasons there is “dispute” about everything in the Bible. As for your speculations they are just as good or bad as the next fellows. But would you pass them on as knowledge? You still have the faith, but as you pointed out, it cannot be confirmed.

> Again, the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Only fundamentalists contend such (I hope I am moving away from that). I believe there are some general statements made in the Bible other than 'inherited sin' but can't remember offhand.

You seem to be making progress in moving away from fundamentalism, so I gather that your initial reaction to my post was a temporary lapse back into fundy-dom.

> How can you deny the existence of evil, seemingly beyond human comprehension? 'Primitive' does not necessarily mean 'wrong'. There have been and continue to be unexplained events of various types which do not fall into scientific explanations and are as 'unknown'. Whether this influence or force is an actual entity is specualtive.

WW, to deny the existence of a Devil and demons isn’t synonymous with denying the existence of evil; you should consider yourself above such word tricks.

Norm: original post: 8. And do the masses know that joyous life in Paradise is our Creator’s purpose for obedient mankind?

The masses thankfully don’t know any such thing and neither do the Watchtower Society. Only the extremely superstitious think they “know” anything like this. Notice that the Watchtower uses the world “know” in these questions. The “world”, or “mankind” doesn’t “know” or "realize" this or that. To use such a word to describe all the fantasies written down in the Bible and in the Watchtower is of course nonsense in itself, as it haven’t got anything to do with knowledge. It has to do with faith. It is something they believe. They don’t KNOW anything.
When you know something you don’t have to believe it anymore. No matter how vividly you believe it. No matter how “real” such nonsense seem to you, it is still superstition, and superstition isn’t knowledge. There are still people who “know” that the earth is flat, as we all know that doesn’t make it flat.

> Ha ha hah, you use that old 'flat earth' claim against all of the religious when this is a completely false notion. There is evidence in ancient texts that confirm the idea that much of mankind has believed the earth to be spherical for ages. This is a 'straw man' used frequently by anti-religionists to make the spiritual minded appear inferior.
> WW

You have to do better than this WW. You fail to realize that faith in the flat earth is used here as an example of the nature of faith and belief. As you noted above it is the very nature of faith that it can’t be confirmed, that is why you have to believe it. Some people even manage to ignore things that can be confirmed like the fact that the earth is a sphere and insist on believing that it is flat. Likewise many people continue to believe in a global flood although it can be confirmed that it is impossible. So the “notion” isn’t that bad WW. There might be “ancient” texts confirming the knowledge about a spherical earth, but the book that you have such faith in, the Bible, contain no such texts. At least that should be of some concern to you.

But all in all it is refreshing to discover that you finally agree with me that faith in general cannot be confirmed. So again, where did you show me my “errors”?

Norm.

Follow Ups:

- *****Great need of nonsense WW 14:04:51 10/24/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *****Great need of nonsense

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]