Jehovah's Witnesses try to murder their own son

[scaramanga]

Your most shocking statement in this thread.

Shocking because it surprises or offends you? I tend to do a lot of both.

 

[DTA]

And before the evidence for the atom was there believing in it for no reason would be irrational.

Either provide evidence or accept that there is no evidence.

there was a huge amount of evidence, just took a long time to decipher it. That's the point.

 

[milo]

Oh but you are, if you an atheist (or if you like 'strong atheist' - which is a bull**** term used to blur the distinction between the term atheist and agnostics - and therefore enable mere 'atheists' to use the burden of proof argument which only is a suitable response for agnostics within the framework of this topic).... any way if you are an atheist you don't believe in a deity/creator and therefore believe in chance as the 'creator' the burden of proof lies as much with you as it does with those that believe.. So prove it?

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer GHod than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen F Roberts

 

[Roy1983]

Ah, go on. It's just beginning to get interesting.

Stop acting like a prick scara mate it doesn't suit you. You believe in what you want and ill do the same.

 

[scaramanga]

Stop acting like a prick scara mate it doesn't suit you. You believe in what you want and ill do the same.

At the risk of disagreeing with everything, I'd say that being a prick suits me very well - I'm very good at it.

It's something anyone can achieve, one just needs to give zero fvcks about other people's opinions of them.

 

[braineclipse]

Shocking because it surprises or offends you? I tend to do a lot of both.

Surprising. Takes more, and different, to offend me.

I think "cult" is a pretty apt description of the witnesses. So it surprises me that someone like you who is fairly aligned with me on these issues see them as one of the most harmless sects.

there was a huge amount of evidence, just took a long time to decipher it. That's the point.

How is that a point?

Once there was a thing that took a long time to figure out that was eventually accepted as scientific fact - so you should believe something that's currently not supported in any way shape or form?

What's the evidence for GHod?

 

[scaramanga]

there was a huge amount of evidence, just took a long time to decipher it. That's the point.

And a vanishingly small amount of evidence for that which turned out not to be there, like witchcraft, geocentricity, alchemy etc.

As there's currently no evidence at all of a GHod, I'd say it's more likely to go the way of witchcraft than the atom.

 

[DTA]

False dichotomy.

I don't have to believe in any story of creation. I can accept that I live in a world that I don't fully understand the creation of. A lot of it is known as it is, was worked out by people who accepted that they didn't already have the answers by the way. But even without a single shred of evidence about the origins of life, the earth or our universe I could be an atheist by simply rejecting the existing GHod claims.

The knowledge we have just makes it a lot easier. Or as Dawkins said it somewhat simplified: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

I think I know why religious people get so hung up in the creation bit of atheism and theism. It's because it's one of the gaps of science that is most obvious, and so one where it's easy to insert GHod. And it's all within a scientific discipline where most people are completely ignorant, so it's easy to make all kinds of claims. But the creation issue is just one rather small portion of the atheism/theism discussion. In fact, if the only disagreement was about the origin of the universe and someone like yourself presented the deistic argument of a "prime mover", that then no longer interfered in this universe I would have very little argument with you. I think the same is true for most atheists, I know it was true for Hitchens just to mention someone who was very outspoken and critical.

The real problems start when you move from deism to theism. When it's not just a prime mover, but a GHod who cares how we act and think, who has written or influenced holy texts, who supposedly communicates with people on earth and who has a whole organization working for him and his ideas with real humans in positions of power and influence.

I don't think it is a false dichotomy at all, I'm just presenting the same argument and asking the same questions, just in reverse, and you or anyone else is no closer to proving that everything was created from what I will dub 'mad chance theory' (but only to mirror the belittling tones of many atheists) then I am to proving the existence of a deity.

'Prime mover' is an interesting one and I didn't know that Hitchens believed in it, not that I have read his thoughts extensively. But then again I would say that it's an argument that all atheists would have to concede at least to a level, because of the fact that everything out of absolute nothing does not compute... And to my mind never will. Would be interesting to see if you have a counter argument to that (and not being a dic k here, I really would be interested).

But why does the prime mover/deity have to not have interfered, could they not have put a 'code into the script' that could move things along in a general direction, not controlling everything but kind of weighting the roulette ball a little? Just asking?

People that believe often come back to the origins of everything because it is a glaring contradiction in the atheist argument, and one that requires as much 'belief' in a non proven theory as the belief in a deity.

What do you mean by GHod claims?

 

[DTA]

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer GHod than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stephen F Roberts

But which GHod do I dismiss? Maybe I don't dismiss any GHod?

 

[DTA]

And a vanishingly small amount of evidence for that which turned out not to be there, like witchcraft, geocentricity, alchemy etc.

As there's currently no evidence at all of a GHod, I'd say it's more likely to go the way of witchcraft than the atom.

Well let's take alchemy, (although I don't know much about it so risk looking like a fool), gold is created by the 'birth' of a star right? Which in its Essence is a chemical process, right? So why is it ludicrous to suggest that gold can't be made by a man made chemical process, yes the understanding and tools are not there but that doesn't mean that the theory of alchemy is inherently flawed, or does it?

 

[DTA]

Surprising. Takes more, and different, to offend me.

I think "cult" is a pretty apt description of the witnesses. So it surprises me that someone like you who is fairly aligned with me on these issues see them as one of the most harmless sects.



How is that a point?

Once there was a thing that took a long time to figure out that was eventually accepted as scientific fact - so you should believe something that's currently not supported in any way shape or form?

What's the evidence for GHod?

Just because I can't give you the evidence for GHod, doesn't mean that there is no GHod. Just as in the not to distant past people couldn't provide evidence of the atom, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[milo]

But which GHod do I dismiss? Maybe I don't dismiss any GHod?

I was assuming that you do not believe in all gods

 

[Roy1983]

At the risk of disagreeing with everything, I'd say that being a prick suits me very well - I'm very good at it.

It's something anyone can achieve, one just needs to give zero fvcks about other people's opinions of them.

I give zero too so maybe I am as well going by that description. Just realise everyone's different.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think it is a false dichotomy at all, I'm just presenting the same argument and asking the same questions, just in reverse, and you or anyone else is no closer to proving that everything was created from what I will dub 'mad chance theory' (but only to mirror the belittling tones of many atheists) then I am to proving the existence of a deity.

'Prime mover' is an interesting one and I didn't know that Hitchens believed in it, not that I have read his thoughts extensively. But then again I would say that it's an argument that all atheists would have to concede at least to a level, because of the fact that everything out of absolute nothing does not compute... And to my mind never will. Would be interesting to see if you have a counter argument to that (and not being a dic k here, I really would be interested).

But why does the prime mover/deity have to not have interfered, could they not have put a 'code into the script' that could move things along in a general direction, not controlling everything but kind of weighting the roulette ball a little? Just asking?

People that believe often come back to the origins of everything because it is a glaring contradiction in the atheist argument, and one that requires as much 'belief' in a non proven theory as the belief in a deity.

What do you mean by GHod claims?

What I wrote is that I don't have to believe in any theory for creation to be an atheist. Your entire line of reasoning breaks down at that point. I don't have to believe in "mad chance theory" to be an atheist. I can reject all GHod claims without making truth claims about he origins of the universe/earth/life.

Hitchens didn't believe in a prime mover. Please re-read my post. No atheist would have to concede to a prime mover argument (if we had to, I would already have done so and I would have been a deist). For me to conceded to that there would have to be evidence supporting that theory over other theories, there isn't, so a simple "I don't know" suffices. Simple logic really, again returning to burden of proof.

Interesting that you're so dogmatic about a universe from nothing never will make sense to you. Lawrence Krauss, a well known and highly respected physicist talks about the concept of a universe from nothing in a good layman's version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg Just to be perfectly clear, I don't have to believe that to be an atheist. I don't fully understand his hypothesis and it hasn't been proven. Again, I can answer "I don't know" and be an atheist, that's the only counter argument I need to unsupported claims. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens. I don't have to prove an alternative version to dismiss one which is unsupported by the evidence.

Again, I think you might have to re-read my post. What I said about a deistic argument (prime mover) is that it would get very little argument from me. There's a big difference between that and what I described. One I have a big problem with, the other not so much. What you describe (weighting the roulette ball a little") is a plausible universe, but that explanation has a lot more real world implications than the pure deistic "prime mover" explanation.

What is the glaring contradiction in the atheist argument? Is it the false dichotomy you lined up before? I'll repeat myself once more since you seem to misunderstand me a lot. "I don't know". That's perfectly coherent with atheism and perfectly coherent with not knowing how the universe got going. There is no contradiction. The vast majority of intellectually honest religious believers are distancing themselves from any literal interpretation of the creation stories in their religions it seems, perhaps learning from centuries of science proving those creation stories wrong. That type of religious belief is also coherent with the "I don't know" answer.

GHod claims refers to all the claims made by all the various religious people about all the various Gods that they have believed in.

 

[braineclipse]

Just because I can't give you the evidence for GHod, doesn't mean that there is no GHod. Just as in the not to distant past people couldn't provide evidence of the atom, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

But that's not a reason for believing in a GHod. To me at least. If it was it would be a good reason for believing in all things unproven.

 

[scaramanga]

Surprising. Takes more, and different, to offend me.

I think "cult" is a pretty apt description of the witnesses. So it surprises me that someone like you who is fairly aligned with me on these issues see them as one of the most harmless sects.

I think it's mostly on the comparative lack of harm to others basis.

I may just be ignorant about it, but I don't know of many JWs getting caught out giving it to choir boys, or laying waste to vast swathes of non-believers, or stating their wish for an entire nation to cease to exist, etc.

And the little Mormons (I say little because I've never seen a tall one) are just funny. Their neatness and niceness etc. And I love their song "Fvck you GHod" that's a good'un.

 

[scaramanga]

Well let's take alchemy, (although I don't know much about it so risk looking like a fool), gold is created by the 'birth' of a star right? Which in its Essence is a chemical process, right? So why is it ludicrous to suggest that gold can't be made by a man made chemical process, yes the understanding and tools are not there but that doesn't mean that the theory of alchemy is inherently flawed, or does it?

You're on the right track, they're made during the death of a star.

All elements heavier than iron are made from super novae - as the pressure and temperature increases, so does the maximum weight of the elements the star can form. That's why they are rare elements - a star can fuse almost all elements up to the weight of iron over billions of years, but chucks everything else out in its dying breath.

Ironically alchemy, which is drenched in religious dogma was a precursor to science. The very simplistic attempts to create gold from base metals ended up teaching mankind a fair bit about chemistry.

But it wasn't so much about the end goal in alchemy, my understanding is that it was about the methods. Many of which seem ridiculous to the modern mind.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Can we make the conversation more structured if possible please?

For example, are we saying atheism in its absolute sense and theism are both irrational if you believe in them wholeheartedly and that agnosticism is rational as nobody can provide tangible evidence that a deity exists or that a first singular exists or that a ball of gas existed to start it all?

 

[LutonSpurs]

Also i have been meaning to read Hitchens book as scara or braineclipse mentioned him as being someone they respect in terms of refuting theism. It is a very interesting discussion if we can keep it harmonious.

 

[DTA]

What I wrote is that I don't have to believe in any theory for creation to be an atheist. Your entire line of reasoning breaks down at that point. I don't have to believe in "mad chance theory" to be an atheist. I can reject all GHod claims without making truth claims about he origins of the universe/earth/life.

Hitchens didn't believe in a prime mover. Please re-read my post. No atheist would have to concede to a prime mover argument (if we had to, I would already have done so and I would have been a deist). For me to conceded to that there would have to be evidence supporting that theory over other theories, there isn't, so a simple "I don't know" suffices. Simple logic really, again returning to burden of proof.

Interesting that you're so dogmatic about a universe from nothing never will make sense to you. Lawrence Krauss, a well known and highly respected physicist talks about the concept of a universe from nothing in a good layman's version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg Just to be perfectly clear, I don't have to believe that to be an atheist. I don't fully understand his hypothesis and it hasn't been proven. Again, I can answer "I don't know" and be an atheist, that's the only counter argument I need to unsupported claims. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens. I don't have to prove an alternative version to dismiss one which is unsupported by the evidence.

Again, I think you might have to re-read my post. What I said about a deistic argument (prime mover) is that it would get very little argument from me. There's a big difference between that and what I described. One I have a big problem with, the other not so much. What you describe (weighting the roulette ball a little") is a plausible universe, but that explanation has a lot more real world implications than the pure deistic "prime mover" explanation.

What is the glaring contradiction in the atheist argument? Is it the false dichotomy you lined up before? I'll repeat myself once more since you seem to misunderstand me a lot. "I don't know". That's perfectly coherent with atheism and perfectly coherent with not knowing how the universe got going. There is no contradiction. The vast majority of intellectually honest religious believers are distancing themselves from any literal interpretation of the creation stories in their religions it seems, perhaps learning from centuries of science proving those creation stories wrong. That type of religious belief is also coherent with the "I don't know" answer.

GHod claims refers to all the claims made by all the various religious people about all the various Gods that they have believed in.

Ok I'm only 20 mins in but already he is saying nothing is not nothing ergo it's a mass we don't fully understand, ie the atom before we understood it (obviously simplifying), that for the link btw love his style of presenting. And I will finish watching it.

But back to our discussion, your universal claim of 'I don't know' can then be applied to any theist who claims the same thing, as in you say 'I believe there is no GHod/deity prime mover' and therefore our creation is that of chance. I would say that I believe there is a GHod/deity and our creation is at least instigated by that being (or indeed beings). We both answer that we don't know how it was done (and we don't) ... You now come back with burden of proof... But excuse your self from it by saying that because you are not claiming something's existence then you don't have to prove it.

My point(s) are/is this, the atom existed and was a constant before it was 'found'. by saying there is no GHod you are automatically believing in some kind or dirivitive of 'mad chance theory' even if you don't know what it is yet. My theory of creation is as valid scientifically as yours as there is no conclusive (or even good theory) proof. Now if your an agnostic (and by this I mean the common perception of what Agnosticsism is, rather then a get out clause for atheists) then your answer of I don't know, and burden of proof carries much more weight.