I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • done4good
    done4good

    Excellent thread, Warlock.

    I would agree that both theists and atheists can have the tendency to try to convert others to their way of thinking. Nvr summed up quite nicely as to why this is so. The question really should probably be, why do so many atheists here tend to be prone to do this? Here are a few possible reasons:

    1. Ex-jws already have been taught through years of training to look at religion critically. Since many things concerning religion can be proven false through history or science, an ex-jw picks up on these rather easily through research, and these things learned become the basis for all belief thereafter.

    2. Ex-jws have also been trained that what people believe is a life and death matter. An ex-jw is still prone to this black and white train of thought.

    3. Faith and spirituality in general are things that are barely understood in the jw religion. Faith is completely associated with the FDS's explanation with absolute certainty of outcome. No contradictions are allowed or possible.

    Atheism makes sense on the surface. Even better than how many once thought the jw religion made sense on the surface.

    It is possible to look at belief in a higer power from a far more liberal viewpoint than many ex-jws do.

    j

  • RAF
    RAF

    S4

    Was curious ... OY OY OY ... you guy's (you are not the only one) :

    Congrats yourself ... ()

    you want the other cheek (you've got it - nothing painfull here) I don't think I need to explain my point of view over and over again (like in the thread you've mentionned ... means in the same thread just to debunck fallacies (it's getting more and more tiring) And I'm confident in peoples intelligence to get the point about the fallacies.

    The thing is that anyway I don't need to win ...

    Now just for you to know what you are talking about, I think that you need a reminder about was is fallacy all about :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (with examples)

    it includes direct and indirect personal attacks (and the reason why I've reacted to your poste is about you used the IQ argurment - powerfull word - to prove nuts)

    Read the link - very interesting ... (and then read yourself back).

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Warlock:

    If God claims to be a spirit creature, hence invisible, how can anyone confirm his existence?

    I think it might be blasphemy to call God a "creature" but if you're happy with it, it doesn't bother me. We could confirm his existence by measuring the effect he has on the visible universe. For example, a resurrection would be evidence for the existence of God as would regeneration of an amputated limb (on a mammal), a booming voice from the clouds, turning water into wine, parting the dead sea, any of his usual tricks. Not necessarily conclusive evidence but certainly strong enough for everyone to sit up and take notice. If the best he can do is a face in a toasted cheese sandwich then he's not really much of a god, is he?

    Insofar as being happy about possibly being wrong, at least I admit I could be wrong. How about you? I doubt it.

    I absolutely and freely admit it. Of course I could be wrong about this, I've been wrong before. If the evidence proves me wrong I will change my beliefs as I have done many times before. Until then, I have no choice but to take the default position that an entity for whose existence there is no evidence does not in fact exist.

    How many times a day do you "check" your beliefs, especially the one concerning Gods existence?

    For the most part, my beliefs work very well on a day-to-day basis, as I'm sure yours do for you. If not, you'd be forced to confront and change them. But I check my beliefs concerning God's existence every time I get involved in a thread about it here where I ask for evidence of same. I want to check that evidence to see whether it is convincing enough for me to investigate further, and ultimately to change my beliefs.

    However, you, having already positively declared your belief can probably never be dissuaded of it, as there is nothing even theoretically possible that could conclusively disprove the existence of God.

    So I can change my beliefs if I am given convincing enough evidence. You, it seems, cannot change your beliefs unless, perhaps, you can be persuaded that the evidence on which you base them is not strong enough to warrant doing so. A discussion of that evidence could be very productive as, if it is in fact good evidence then it may well persuade me, whereas if it is flawed then you may end up being liberated from a false belief.

    What will prove to me whether God exists or not, will be my death.

    If he does exist, and if he will allow me, I will positively come back and haunt you, and Abaddon.

    Lots of people have made claims like that, but as there's no convincing evidence for the existence of spirit creatures either, it seems unlikely that I'll ever hear you rattling around in my attic. But again, this complete absence of evidence won't be enough to dissuade you from belief as there can be any number of reasons compatible with an afterlife that explain the total lack of convincing evidence for it. Personally, I prefer to take the more parsimonious position and assume that there is no evidence because there's nothing there.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Mary

    I can get some people with PhD's believe in god; their PhD might not be in a subject that exposes them to the very strong arguments that every traditional concept of god is stuff and nonsense. They might be of a background where free enquiry into beliefs they have grown up with is not encouraged. They might be stunningly erudite about their field of expertise, but shy away from examining their religious beliefs. I know of really quite well educated JW's who pull this trick off.

    I was struck recently by Anne Rice's account of her turn-around in belief; that I do not get. She grew-up Catholic but became an atheist. In the 1990's she underwent a gradual transition back to theist culminating with her rejoining the Catholic Church again. In her recent book about Jesus as a boy, she recounts this, and the reasons why.

    Now Anne Rice is a very smart lady. She has read LOADS. She knew all the reasons why she became an atheist. She is open-minded (few grandmothers write more about sex! Especially gay sex!).

    Yet read her explanation for her becoming a Catholic again and you wonder why. She quotes various writers who 'helped' her on their way, but actual hard evidence causing her re-conversion? Not a thing. She just became convinced by the arguments of Biblical Apologists whereas before she believed in Biblical Criticism, yet seems to have ignored the rather important point that Biblical Apologetics starts with a presupposition of the Bible's ability to differentiate itself from other so called 'Holy' books. Which cannot be proved, unless you include the Book of Mormon.

    Personally I think linking education or intelligence to belief or disbelief in god is fallacious. Stupid people are atheists. Stupid people are theists. People with poor secular educations are atheists. People with poor secular educations are theists.

    Let the arguments stand on their own without distracting bullshit. Which brings us to...

    Warlock

    If God claims to be a spirit creature, hence invisible, how can anyone confirm his existence?

    If I claim to have a spirit 12" penis, hence invisible, how can anyone confirm its existence?

    Insofar as being happy about possibly being wrong, at least I admit I could be wrong. How about you? I doubt it.

    Is the reason you go for the ad hom due to the fact you have no argument regarding the existence of god that is worth hearing, or because they are all as easily lampoonable as the above?

    How many times a day do you "check" your beliefs, especially the one concerning Gods existence?

    Are you suggesting god might have sprung into existence between mid-morning and lunchtime? I mean, after breakfast I was pretty sure god didn't exist, I didn't realise vast all-powerful entities were so quantum.

    What will prove to me whether God exists or not, will be my death.

    No it won't. Look into Near Death Experiences. Survivors of NDE typically report experiences in line with their beliefs. You have a belief in god, and will probably, as your brain shuts down for good, experience for entirely physiological reasons sensations you will, due to your beliefs, interpret as proof of god's existence. You might think for a fleeting second that god's existence has been proved before your brain stops being capable of thought in any meaningful fashion, but if that is your standard of proof your standard of proof is sorely inadequate.

    If he does exist, and if he will allow me, I will positively come back and haunt you, and Abaddon.

    LOL. And thus show us that you learned nothing in life, and that god considers petulant childish actions a good use of your time. And as Funky points out, this has never happened, ever, to anyone. Dawkins would probably never sleep if even one half of one percent of the dead god-botherers who would have liked to give him a good haunting actually did haunt him.

    Of course, this is not proof that god doesn't exist, it may merely be proof god is not as petty and childish as some of his believers.

  • acsot
    acsot

    Seeker4:

    Finally, when you wrote "(a fact is a fact, a not proved theory is a not proved theory and an opinion is an opinion)" - well, I'm just not going to deal with that again. You've shown in thread after thread that you have no concept of what a scientific theory is. Perhaps it's a language problem, but it is very hard to respect someone writing about what scientists think or don't think, when that person doesn't even understand the basic concept of scientific theories. There must be a few science books written for the layman in French. You need to take the time to read a couple.

    This very discussion took place here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/129048/2288307/post.ashx#2288307

    I provided RAF with a McGill University paper (in French) detailing what "theory" means in the scientific field as well as the mountain of proof that exists concerning evolution. As you can see from her subsequent responses, it didn't do any good.

  • RAF
    RAF

    Ascot (I'm surprised)

    Ok ... what you guys have to understand is that if we are not talking about the same matter it doesn't lead anywhere
    while you are claming (without knowing what I know about the matter - wich I find quiet presomptious) it's seems like you are actually not really reading what I'm saying but only want to push your argument ... so my question is how can you answer an argument if you don't take into consideration the right one.

    I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER FROM THE START (not the provable part of some provable evolution process which I agree with BTW but only the provable part not more, not less)

    Now again : Can any SCIENTIST prove that God (again the kind I'm thinking and talking about - and not JW like) Does not existe?

    Is that too much to ask for you to considere this before to state anything either about the whole matter of evolution theory from the start or even me (do you know so much about what I know) OH OH OH Please !!!

    I thought that the ambiance was getting more reasonable here ... but

    Eddited to add : if you have to read the other tread read it from the start to the end ... to get the point

  • RAF
    RAF

    I may get into an other topic here but it is somehow related - S4 for instance was talking about powerfull words well lets talk about it :

    If you need to use (intelligence, logic, IQ, Knowlegdes, ... whatever alike) like one side have it when the other don't and (Stupidity, ignorance, lack of knowledge ... whatever alike) about the other side ... you still have to considere what each people are talking about or guess what? (should I tell) ... and and and ... a powerfull word doesn't make a pertinent argument

    Now I did insist about fallacies because it's use a bit too much on here (consciously or inconsciously) and I encourage people to really check every argument both sides to get the point about what is fallicious and what is not regarding to the purpose, the questions raised and the argurments ... It takes time but it's worthy ... more you do it and more you sharpen you skill in the matter.

    Still it's just tiring to debate or dialogue with anybody who feel the need to use it a bit too much ... Again I don't think that it leads anywhere and at some point it becomes obvious so ...

    You can tell to someone that he/she is off topic (it happens - and then you still have to wonder why it's off topic - maybe there is a reason) but if you fight an argument, fight the argument related.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    RAF:

    Now again : Can any SCIENTIST prove that God (again the kind I'm thinking and talking about - and not JW like) Does not existe?

    No, not a chance. And I think that's been widely and repeatedly stated by most of the board's resident atheists. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of gods, fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other imaginary being I can come up with.

    What often happens is that people see there are two propositions (A) "There is a god" and (B) "There is no god", they realise that neither can be proved and so they assign an equal probability to both. This is an easy fallacy to fall for. Two possibilities, therefore it's like heads or tails, 50/50. But it's not like that, it's more like holding a lottery ticket and considering the two possibilities (A) "This is a winning ticket" and (B) "This is not a winning ticket". Clearly, this is not a coin toss. One of the options is overwhelmingly more likely than the other, even though there are just two to consider. It may be the same with the existence of a god. To me, the chance of a god existing given that there is no evidence for his existence, and no known way by which such a powerful complex being could come to exist is virtually zero. It's similar to the proposition that the lottery ticket I am holding is a jackpot winner. Now it may be that my estimation of the probabilities is way off, and that's certainly something we can debate, but my point is that it's wrong to automatically give equal weight to the two propositions.

  • Warlock
    Warlock
    No it won't. Look into Near Death Experiences. Survivors of NDE typically report experiences in line with their beliefs .

    I said proof TO ME, not to you. Secondly, I didn't say "when I ALMOST DIE", I said WHEN I die.

    LOL. And thus show us that you learned nothing in life, and that god considers petulant childish actions a good use of your time. And as Funky points out, this has never happened, ever, to anyone.

    How do you know of ANYTHING that I have learned in life? Have you been by my side? As for what FD points out, I didn't realize he had been with everyone through all of their life experiences since the beginning of man.

    Finally, you and FD are J.W.'s at heart and that is what is plain to see.

    Warlock

  • RAF
    RAF

    Funky,

    What often happens is that people see there are two propositions (A) "There is a god" and (B) "There is no god", they realise that neither can be proved and so they assign an equal probability to both. This is an easy fallacy to fall for.

    Now while you think it's a fallacy I just thinks it's reasonable to not push anything further as fact but just claming an opinion...

    It may be the same with the existence of a god. To me, the chance of a god existing given that there is no evidence for his existence, and no known way by which such a powerful complex being could come to exist is virtually zero

    I guess you are talking for your own experience, what do you know about mine? Why do you think I do believe? Why do you think I'm not even going to get into details about that (I'll answer this one) because you won't believe me (and I can understand why) to what looks like reaching virtually zero evidence to you ... is closed 99 % for me (it's just that I don't know about the details and I won't push any possible answer as THE ANSWER on anybody).

    So off course while opting for 1+1 = 2 seems logic (you still have to wonder what is 1 for each of us in the matter).

    It's similar to the proposition that the lottery ticket I am holding is a jackpot winner. Now it may be that my estimation of the probabilities is way off, and that's certainly something we can debate, but my point is that it's wrong to automatically give equal weight to the two propositions.

    That's when this comparision becomes fallacious (contextually) it stand but without taking everything in consideration

    Off course it's maybe the way you deal with it and wich persuade yourself (so it doesn't seems fallaciou to you) but if you get a closer look at the question itsefl it doesn't change my experience (my 1+1) wich is not the same as yours obviously.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit