Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: whereislogic
related to the above historical truths/facts.

That is what people say when there is no rational logic, they start spouting terms, ignorantly, like 'truth/facts'.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

I believe that my faith is a faith, it's not a fact, I could be wrong
It's funny when people can't distinguish the difference between faith and facts

Having said that, I am absolutely sure that my faith is based on facts
Go figure

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Raggedyman

Can you tell me what year the JW org brought out their own version of the bible and why.

Not a new version , a second book to the Bible. The one where Jesus ministered in the Americas.

I think you are talking Mormonism

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: ClovenSky

ETA: I believe I have found it at archive.org, however I am still looking for a collection of pdfs of books with topics related to everything we discuss here on ATS, if such a website exists containing such a collection. -end of edit.

I never seem to be able to find these free pdfs. I just tried and all I got was a fake file pretending to be the book but really just has a picture of the cover and a link to a website requiring a paid account.

Could somebody please help me?
Also is there a good website with pdfs of interesting books?

This was the link that I used for the free PDF.

History: Fiction or Science? .... by Fomenko
www.caam.rice.edu...

600+ pages. But worth every word, imho.

a reply to: whereislogic

You call yourself a thinker yet you use a propaganda website as the source of nearly all of your arguements.

You deny true science and tell other members they are using lies and propaganda yet the JW website fits the definition of propaganda to a t. As does the watchtower society newsletters. I find it truly ironic.

Apparently anything that doesn't fit your sects teachings is a lie. And your word salad is strong.

a reply to: Joecanada11

IS THE WORK OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PROPAGANDISTIC?
...
the work of the Witnesses is educational.
...
they teach people worldwide to reason...
...
A political scientist similarly remarked about the Witnesses: “They behave toward other people with profound kindness, love and gentleness.” [unlike certain other people on ATS who continuously repeat the same accusations wherever a person says something on ATS, why don't you go somewhere else to spread your propaganda? What's your obsession with me? Am I cramping your style of misinforming and misleading people on ATS? Sorry, can't help it, I need to spread truths, it's in my very being.]
...
They also help people to find the strength to overcome bad habits and to develop the ability to get along with others. Such a work would hardly be termed “propaganda.” As The World Book Encyclopedia says, in a climate where ideas circulate freely, “propaganda differs from education.”

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

a reply to: whereislogic

So jehovahs witnesses are the bestest people ever and don't use propaganda?

Not according to THIS WEBSITE and many MANY others.

ETA: There is even a bit about your precious watchtower you keep linking to.

The main reason for the doctrine of the trinity was to make the religion attractive to pagans. Egyptians believed everything good comes in threes.

a reply to: namelesss
A rational person with a properly functioning brain believes truths/facts to be true/factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error (I also believe that truths/facts/realities/certainties exist, or that which is true/factual/certain/absolute exists*). If that means that my brain processes those beliefs and those facts in the same way (if), then it seems to me that it's working fine.
* = unlike other people who have a problem dealing with reality and who prefer their imaginations backed up by agnosticism and arguments from ignorance regarding specific subjects; a behaviour and way of thinking they then view as being openminded, choosing the gray vague areas where they can fantasize away.

I also see nothing in your comment to suggest that you were speaking the truth when you said in response to my usage of the synonymous words "truths/facts" (which you changed to 'truth/facts', which is either a spelling error or a demonstration you don't understand that "truths" and "facts" are synonymous words, yet "a truth" is singular, and just "truth" could be mistaken for a different adjective if you don't specify the "s" when using it as a synonym for "facts"):

That is what people say when there is no rational logic, they start spouting terms, ignorantly, like 'truth/facts'.

I would say that applies better to the one who attempts to put a false dichotomy between how one can think about the words "beliefs" and "facts", as if they are somehow opposed to one another (just because there are people who blindly believe things that aren't true/factual without applying inductive reasoning to their beliefs because of conditioning by the system of things, including religious philosophers and teachers). People's beliefs do not affect if something is a fact/reality/truth/certainty or if something is factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive (adjective: correct, without error) or not. All of these synonyms and their adjectives can be googled (before anyone tries to twist my point and pretend that I'm saying that beliefs and facts are the same thing or can be used synonymously).

The way of thinking I alluded to above (without pointing fingers at you specifically) connects to the philosophy/idea that one requires an observer for a fact/reality to exist and it's just more of Trinitarian Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism and philosophical tar-water (him getting his fame for getting people to actually drink real tar-water, but that's too long to get into; I'm also describing it a bit different than the official philosophy of immaterialism because other ways of thinking are connected to it and I want to emphasize the above).


This Bishop might have drunk some tar-water (poison) seeing his face:

The definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary says about immaterialism:
"a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions"
But that's not quite the whole story, like I said, other ways of thinking are connected to it (and also sometimes spread by Bishop Berkeley and his fans and philosopher friends, those who continued his line of thinking).

Quoting Raggedyman:

It's funny when people can't distinguish the difference between faith and facts...

I don't consider it very funny but a rather sad state of affairs that I am trying my best to influence in the right direction unlike those who are too busy painting a picture on someone else for supposedly not being able to tell the difference. Also note that this response was a response to your response about my usage of the synonyms "truths/facts".
Belief/faith wasn't even mentioned there.
Did you know you can describe historical facts regarding historical beliefs? One can learn (discover, conclude) it is a historical fact then that a person or group believed that if one has adequate historical evidence of that person or group expressing those beliefs. That however does not have to mean that those beliefs themselves are factual/true/correct, without error. It neither has to mean that they are incorrect either. Determining that depends on further examination of the evidence, study of and reasoning on what is bolded below from The Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

I guess the writer(s) of that encyclopedia also believe(s) there are such things as "established facts" (historical or current).

a reply to: whereislogic

You can't use your own propaganda website to claim it isn't propaganda. It doesn't work like that.

The fact that the Jehovas witness website has to have a section claiming it doesn't use propaganda is a giant red flag.

I've already linked articles from scholars in your other threads that show the techniques used are propaganda techniques.

Free thinking and expression is discouraged and anything that doesn't agree with your doctrine is deemed lies and propaganda by yourself.

a reply to: Joecanada11
Then why is it that it's others that want to confuse people about how beliefs and facts relate to one another?

Why are Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking and all their fans quietly going along with the philosophy that 'nothing = something'?

Why do your sources not say anything about that and many many other things like it?

a reply to: whereislogic

It's a hypothesis and it's not nothing into something. The Big Bang hypothesis is created by all the matter that is compressed into the tiniest amount of space expanding at the same time. Big expansion would actually be more accurate than Big Bang.

Just thought I'd add THIS LINK again to show people just how bad watchtower and JWs really are. (I might make it my sig)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

It's a hypothesis and it's not nothing into something.

It's worse, he's claiming that "nothing" = "something" = "not nothing" = "literally nothing" = "something very very simple" = "something pretty mysterious", and you can swap them out in any order you like when accurately representing the views of Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking and anyone who views these people more as scientists than as philosophers and who cannot recognize or will not acknowledge the blatant contradiction and propagandistic techniques used in the video I shared about it (and anyone on the same bandwagon, Krauss has quite a few awards and Hawking is viewed as a genius and people love getting their ears tickled by these guys; I see few objections, the only ones coming from those who refer to themselves as ID-proponents and perhaps a few creationists, sadly, they don't bring out the propaganda techniques very well, especially the line that uses the phrases "sophisticated physicist" and "naive person" and "in physics").

And it's not a hypothesis, it's an arrogant prideful disregard for the meaning and proper use of language, twisting and turning and warping people's thinking about this subject in order to hide their belief and religious philosophy that 'Mother Nature/Gaia did it' (which has been swapped out for all the terms mentioned above including "the law of gravity" and "the universe" by Stephen Hawking in his book "The Grand Design"). It's also a disdainful insult to your and others' intelligence to recognize what they're doing (I'm referring to those who aren't noticing and who like getting their ears tickled). Perhaps they're even laughing their ass off at those who spend 2 hours (I saw a speech about it that lasted 2 hours) getting their heads filled with mental poison about a simple word such as "nothing" (or who buy their books, ranging from "The Blind Watchmaker" to the other one I mentioned).

I guess "information", "code", "design", "technology", "machine", "facts/truths/certainties", "belief/faith" and all the other words, logical concepts and ways of reasoning that were already warped that way weren't enough to save their philosophy that 'nature did it'.

Oh, back to why it's not a hypothesis:
Your Cells—Living Libraries! Awake!—2015

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand?* Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

* = By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

It can never be tested that 'nothing = something' because the words themselves are contradictory, it's an attempt at redefining language that has been agreed upon by human beings in order to converse rationally for centuries (and proven to work if you don't try to warp language to sell philosophies and show of your intellectual superiority complex over your flocks).

And there at the end of the quotation we have another word that people like to confuse others about:
"species"
But that's not why I quoted it.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's a scientific hypothesis (even though scientists have called it a theory, but I don't agree). Try reading what it is instead of being an ignorant JW.

THIS LINK might help you see the light. It explains how you've been lied to. It also explains how you are taught "science is wrong".

And for the record, JW and watchtower are quite happy to rape, kill, leave out parts of the bible, lie and use their own propaganda to prove their circular logic.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss
A rational person with a properly functioning brain believes

Ah, so MANY words, so LITTLE actually said...
And;
You are in error.
A rational person with a properly functioning 'brain' hosts no 'belief infection'!

You launch into this with a fallacy already at your lips.
I despair anything of value coming from even responding.
After all, you can easily dismiss me as a not "rational person with a properly functioning brain" because I do not suffer from the same strain of 'belief infection' that disables you!
How 'self' protective of the vain ego!
How intellectually dishonest.
How symptomatic of a 'belief infection'.

believes truths/facts to be true/factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error (I also believe that truths/facts/realities/certainties exist, or that which is true/factual/certain/absolute exists*).
If that means that my brain processes those beliefs and those facts in the same way (if), then it seems to me that it's working fine.

So, you are comfortable in your delusional insanity?
I do not accept that, considering the length and Faithless desperation of your 'response/apology'!

I also see nothing in your comment to suggest that you were speaking the truth when you said in response to my usage of the synonymous words "truths/facts" (which you changed to 'truth/facts', which is either a spelling error or a demonstration you don't understand that "truths" and "facts" are synonymous words, yet "a truth" is singular, and just "truth" could be mistaken for a different adjective if you don't specify the "s" when using it as a synonym for "fact"):...
I would say that applies better to the one who attempts to put a false dichotomy between how one can think about the words "beliefs" and "facts", as if they are somehow opposed to one another (just because there are people who blindly believe things that aren't true/factual without applying inductive reasoning to their beliefs because of conditioning by the system of things, including religious philosophers and teachers). People's beliefs do not affect if something is a fact/reality/truth/certainty or if something is factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive (adjective: correct, without error) or not. All of these synonyms and their adjectives can be googled (before anyone tries to twist my point and pretend that I'm saying that beliefs and facts are the same thing or can be used synonymously).

I'm sorry, you are babbling/dissembling!
I still stand by every word that I said!
Your blithering (fallacies; strawmen, ad-homs, moving the goal posts, etc...!) means nothing in a rational logical discussion.
So far I find little of that from you.
'Belief-addled' is the term.
Emotional symptomatic apologetics...

And with no disrespect intended, I haven't the time to deal with the rest of your nonsense!
You remind me of the chess playing pigeon; it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and returns to the flock claiming victory.
I'm not going to be baited into such a discussion.

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

I remain behind my words until someone capable of thinking for himself offers rational evidence to the contrary.
Your assortment of vids and thoughts of others who suffer from the same 'beliefs/ignorance' means nothing unless offered in SUPPORT of your own thoughts... Not instead of them.
All Faithless 'belief' pablum!
Beliefs inhibit cognitive and intellectual function, leading into insanity, which you demonstrate quite adequately!

I guess the writer(s) of that encyclopedia also believe(s) there are such things as "established facts" (historical or current).

I can understand how you need to imbibe all your thoughts from other heads, when your own are nonexistent or... 'belief-addled'!

"The great snare of thought is the uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions!" - Will Durant

originally posted by: whereislogic
I wonder if I start a thread with the title "1+1=2 is a fact/truth/certainty"

I will, once again, prove, logically (for those capable of understanding it, and intellectually honest enough to take the correction) that your assertion is in error.
That your 'certainty' is a mental aberration!
All insane ego!
Go ahead, do the experiment!
I'll wait.... *__-

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: whereislogic
related to the above historical truths/facts.

That is what people say when there is no rational logic, they start spouting terms, ignorantly, like 'truth/facts'.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

I believe that my faith is a faith, it's not a fact, I could be wrong
It's funny when people can't distinguish the difference between faith and facts

Having said that, I am absolutely sure that my faith is based on facts
Go figure

I'll respond when my eyes stop rolling! *__-

a reply to: whereislogic

You are the one confusing beliefs with facts. You keep pushing your religion as fact when there is insufficient evidence to do so. Then you accuse other members who bring solid evidence to the table of propaganda and spreading myths. The only myth worth talking about is the wild religion that you keep pushing.

a reply to: namelesss
a "belief infection"?

I guess the word "belief" is a taboo for you. Even when it's not even used in the original phrase you quoted from me and forced me to respond to by mentioning some simple facts about the word "beliefs" and the verb "believe" because you brought up that subject in relation to my phrase that didn't use the word. Will the twisting ever end?

Do you believe that 1+1=2?

Only a yes or no answer allowed. They do something similar in IQ-tests, they ask questions with the options true or false? So no need to try to rephrase it and say things like I accept that 1+1=2 to twist the issue here...I'm asking a simple question that can be answered with either yes or no. And if you want to say "yes" to skip past what you're doing with the word "beliefs" and the verb "believe" (warping the understanding of these words), then the least you can do is acknowledge that you've just admitted to your belief that 1+1=2. I can't really imagine a "no" answer, only a twist (something like no, ...followed by something similar to what I just mentioned regarding the word "accept").

Repeating myself for those who missed my prediction that people were going to pretend that I was conflating or confusing "truths/facts" and "beliefs" (which I made very clear are different, the / indicated where I'm using a synonym):

All of these synonyms ... can be googled (before anyone tries to twist my point and pretend that I'm saying that beliefs and facts are the same thing or can be used synonymously).

I am however going to attempt to resist giving another response on the subject of whether or not it is rational for a person to believe that 1+1=2 or what that means for the word "beliefs" and how one should view that word when those beliefs are based on factual evidence and inductive reasoning for example. I get so tired sometimes of this game...

a reply to: whereislogic

Belief doesn't equal true or false.

Some could believe 1+1=4,500. That's their belief.

Stop confusing belief with truth.

Here. THIS SITE might help you.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss
a "belief infection"?

I guess the word "belief" is a taboo for you.

I have no trouble logically and scientifically supporting my assertion that 'belief' is insanity.

Do you believe that 1+1=2?

Only a yes or no answer allowed. They do something similar in IQ-tests, they ask questions with the options true or false?

The demand for a 'true' vs 'false', 'good' vs 'bad'/'evil'... response is a personal limitation of intellect, it seems to me.
Aristotle poisoned Western 'thought' with just that oversimplified bifurcation.
It is 'thought' for simpletons, who are 'challenged' in seeing the vast spectra of Perspectives that are also true!
Is chocolate 'good' or 'bad'? A simpleton question. Chocolate is neither, all 'meaning', all 'value', exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder!
In answer to your question, no, I am uninfected.
I do Know (Knowledge = experience/perception) that under certain very structured conditions the statement; 2+2=4 is a true statement.
Under other conditions, it is a false statement... etc...

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

So no need to try to rephrase it and say things like I accept that 1+1=2 to twist the issue here...I'm asking a simple question that can be answered with either yes or no.

I'm sorry if intelligence and logic appear to 'twist the issue', but that is your limitation, not mine.

And if you want to say "yes" to skip past what you're doing with the word "beliefs" and the verb "believe" (warping the understanding of these words), then the least you can do is acknowledge that you've just admitted to your belief that 1+1=2. I can't really imagine a "no" answer, only a twist (something like no, ...followed by something similar to what I just mentioned regarding the word "accept").

So all you have is a fallacious and ad-hom attack?
Anything that I say that you disagree with is 'twisting' things?
That is symptomatic behavior of someone infected with 'beliefs'!

I get so tired sometimes of this game...

Tell me about it! Hahahaha! *__-
Have fun with your infection...

See you at the show.