by Perry 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ha! Too funny.
Perry, you sure got the Atheists all worked up. tsk tsk.
Hey, wouldn't it be nice if, for once, they could actully prove themselves logical by answering you logically instead of insulting you or blabbering about this pink unicorn they all seem to think exists?
> blabbering about this pink unicorn they all seem to think exists?
Someone needs to pass a law to make it illegal to mock another person's religious faith.
We need to be more like the Muslim countries where they execute non-believers like you!!!!!
I sure missed this board! *reaches for popcorn*
Where do I begin? How about this? I reject your definition of Cognitive Dissonance.
C.D. is the act of holding two mutually exclusive concepts or statements as true, although both cannot be true.
Wrong. C.D. is the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
It is that uncomfortableness that is important because the Dissonance occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. Dissonance is a problem that must be reduced or eliminated. That's done by ignoring or dismissing a thought or action. The average JW spends no time whatsoever thinking about how they might be rejecting the emblems, thus rejecting Christ. They just think it's an important observance and they are there to observe. An outsider might catch that problem, but the JW will just say that he "observed."
The JW does feel that he is outside of the New Covenant because they were told that it is for the "anointed." That is about the end of that because most people don't truly think deeper than what they were taught. They think their sins are forgiven on the basis of Jesus' blood being given to all who believe and accept the notion- not that actual blood (wine) into their mouth. It is not C.D. because they have already eliminated the dissonance long ago. It's gone.
Now, on to the word, atheist. I don't think it's atheists who claim no belief (without belief). It's monotheists who insist that atheists are without a belief. All atheists are saying is that they do not believe there is a god. That's it. Beyond that, the individuals have various beliefs according to what they have heard, read, observed, etc. Some see the possibility of foreign beings starting life on earth and some see the possibility of evolution starting in the primordial (sp) soup. Atheists are allowed to have beliefs and it's only closed-minded individuals like Perry that insist we are trying to say we have no beliefs. And there may be some who believe in God but use the tight exact definition that you apply and insist that they are simply "without God." Generalizations don't fit people when they decide on their own what they are and what it means. Society has given us labels and many of us try to make the labels fit the best we can. I am actually a rationalist- I will analyze and accept what is rational. But saying that, people will automatically put the atheist label on me, so I don't fight it. It's all just semantics. You even admit that "atheists" imagine a different definition than that found in dictionaries, so what's the big deal.
The stuff you say about believing his job will be there and employment- what are you smoking? It makes no sense. No comments.
You say " Unfortunately, many who leave, take their cognitive dissonance “skills” with them and become atheists. "
So I can say that many take their cognitive dissonance "skills" with them and dismiss the inconsistencies of the Bible and find a comfort zone in some other Christian religion. You can make a claim like yours all you want. That's just meaningless words.
You say, " Likewise, atheists should be proud of who they are. Instead of falsely portraying themselves as poor battered, misunderstood skeptics without belief, without a world-view, yea, without a religion of sorts; they should be promoting the glorious wonders of atheism."
That's not so, again you generalize. If we "promote the glorious wonders of atheism" we receive criticism like yours. Some do, some don't. Many of us just want to be left in peace. You have to take your own spiritual path. If you want to believe in a Sky Daddy who never did anything, who am I to say you should not?
You say, " The fact of the matter is that atheists have adopted a looking-glass lense that requires them to interpret phenonma incorrectly so that their precious world-view is not disturbed. "
I say the opposite, but that's when arguments start, so just leave atheists in peace. Why do assert that as "fact" ? It is clearly a fact that there is no conclusive proof of a God, but plenty of subjective proof of things that a Creationist/Bible-believer is wrong. In the end, you will say that I am ignoring proof and I will say that you are ignoring proof. Have a good day.
> "weak atheism"
The only problem I have with this idea is that it forces one to admit that all sorts of absurd things *could* exist. I prefer to say that something does not exist until I see proof.
So far no one has ever been able to describe any of the measurable properties of the "god of the bible". Anything that exists has measurable properties. All I ask is for the believers to demonstrate a mechanism by which the properties of their deity may be measure.
On a side note, if this deity does not have any measurable properties then this means that it is impossible for the deity to effect us in any way, making the question of its existence moot and utterly irrelevant.
Hi Perry:
You write:
Atheists like to present themselves as lovers of facts, quasi-scientists, above the taint of false interpretation. The fact of the matter is that atheists have adopted a looking-glass lense (sic) that requires them to interpret phenonma incorrectly so that their precious world-view is not disturbed.
Apart from the broad generalizations and painting all atheists with your bias/opinion of atheism, I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish to believe. Even if it's completely wrong.
On the other hand, I find most atheists are open to intelligent discussion of evidence, and they aren't afraid of modifying what they believe if there is new evidence that points in another direction.
My Truth is that I am alive today and I may not be alive tomorrow. My plan is that I will do with today the best that I can for myself and those whose lives intersect with mine today. I will be honest and compassionate in my dealings with others today.
There's no deity who will ever condemn me for having that world view, and even if there is a deity, he/she/it will not hold that world view against me.
Just out of curiosity, Perry, I'd like you to clear something up for me. Why does an Almighty, Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator require such a vigorous defense from his/her/its worshipers? Clearly, an Almighty, Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator has the ability to defend him/her/itself. Doesn't his/her/its choice to refrain from defending him/her/itself demonstrate that he/she/it doesn't care what atheists think or do? Doesn't it seem strange to you that an Almighty, Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator doesn't smite his/her/its enemies him/her/itself, without needing any help from his/her/its followers? You'd think that a Being of that power and stature could easily take care of the infidels without resorting to relying on rabble rousing bullies who obviously don't trust their Creator to be able to take care of his/her/its enemies in his/her/its own sweet time.
Wait on THE LORD™, Perry. Let THE LORD™ do his own dirty work.
I wish you Peace.
Similarly, those who are atheists (or pick another word to use, if you are still hung up dictionary definitions) recognize that while it is conceivable that a supreme being exists, there currently is no evidence for it.
Hi Sir82,
The evidence for God, as a supreme designer is everywhere. The more science progresses, the more of God is revealed. The atheist looks at the same observable facts that the other 99% of the population does and draws a conclusion from Hell...... literally.
For instance, look at the chart in my original post on this thread. These are just five of the deviation values that are allowable pertaining to various characterics of our physical world. If these laws of physics deviate more than the values shown, the universe with could not exist. Do you understand that? There are in fact dozens of such "constants" that pertain to physical laws.
Just so you can understand the GREATEST of the deviations that are allowable in the list provided, Consider:
Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime.
The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10 to the 37th power. The rest of the allowable deviations are far less tolerable than this one in order for the universe to exist as it does.
Of course the liklihood of all these dozens of precise laws coming from nothing, non intelligence, and randomness is impossible. Yet, this is what the atheist is forced to believe.
The atheist has said in his heart, "there is no God" and he'll be damned before he'll let a little thing like facts change his mind. Like the JW that believes that he has some kind of a deal (he just can't explain it very well) with God to avoid judgment outside of the New Covenant and without Jesus as his mediator; the atheist also believes he has an accurate understanding of reality.
The fact of the matter is that there is no salvation outside of the New Covenant in the bible. Read the bible as much as you want....It doesn't exist.
Likewise, the randomness that the atheist is forced to believe in, in place of God, just doesn't exist according to the observable facts. He is forced to believe that he just can't explain it very well. Or, maybe the problem is with others who are to ignorant (self-centered, dishonest, religious etc) to believe with him. Either way the atheist is living inside of an illusion that the other 99% of the population can plainly see.
This is called cognitive dissonance.
Of course the liklihood of all these dozens of precise laws coming from nothing, non intelligence, and randomness is impossible. Yet, this is what the atheist is forced to believe.
Not true. This is a strawman argument. No one is forced to believe any such thing.
Here is one alternative that (some, not all) non-theists / atheists accept: the multiverse
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
There are of course other ideas. If you were more open-minded, you would at least try to understand these ideas. It is evident from your posts (such as the one I quoted from) that you have made little if any attempt to do so.
This is going to be completely in vain, but I'll give it a shot.
Proof that something is unlikely to happen is NOT evidence that something DID NOT happen.
I'll give you an example. The odds of the Earth getting hit on any given day by an extinction-level-event asteroid are probably in the order of 1 in 23 billion (65 million times 365), yet one faithful day some 65 millions years ago, a giant asteroid hit the Earth helping wipe out the dinosaurs.
Would it be correct to say that the Chicxulub impact, for which there is an incredible amount of scientific evidence, never happened simply because the probablily of that event happening is so low?
I think you, my friend, are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance.
> The evidence for God, as a supreme designer is everywhere
Exactly my point from before! The creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I challenge you to prove me wrong.
