Posts by Disillusioned JW

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, except for when being bombarded by political talk while watching the news and while reading the news, and when it is time for me to think about what I should vote for in an upcoming election, I don't think about politics nearly as much as I think about scientific naturalism. I wish the news broadcast said far less about about politics and far more about science news.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze said the following to me.

"But, this isn't really about promoting or defending scientific naturalism is it? It is really about you being troubled that Christians don't vote like you do, right?

So why don't you just stop beating around the bush and start a topic on a political issue that you think you can defend?"

That grossly mischaracterizes my view, but perhaps you misunderstood me. My reasons are as stated in my earlier post and its primarily really about promoting scientific naturalism.

Here is some background. When I decided to become a JW and why I remained a JW for so long was largely because I valued truth and because I had thought (though incorrectly) that the JW religion was the true religion (it does have some correct ideas, but I later learned it also has a great many of false ideas). Furthermore, on many occasions when I hear someone (anyone) say something to me (or around me) that I strongly disagree with I will state my disagreement with them and attempt to correct their thinking. It is a major part of my inborn nature due to my love of truth. Likewise my love of truth and my desire to promote it drives me to now promote and defend scientific naturalism. Naturalism refutes a tremendous number of false ideas since it refutes all the greatly numerous supernaturalistic ideas. That is very important to me.

The political reasons I stated in my earlier post are tertiary (not even secondary), or perhaps not even tertiary, whereas my concern for truth for its own sake is primary. During the initial years I was a naturalist I didn't have any political reasons as a part of my motivation for promoting naturalism. It was simply out of a love for truth and a hatred of falsehood (including a hatred and a disgust of various superstitions). But some Christians criticized that, saying to me why should I be concerned that people believe in the supernatural if does no harm to them and no harm to you (namely to me). The Christians said to me 'why not let religious people believe in their religious beliefs rather than trying to change their views'. They say that Christians promote Christianity in order to save people from going to hell and give people hope and thus to make people have a lives better, and they said what can atheism offer people to help them. I then started to pay more attention in how Christianity harms people in various ways and I began seeing more so than I did in the past how that also happens through fundamentalist evangelical conservative politics in the USA. As I paid attention more to political news I began to more clearly see how conservative/fundamentalist evangelical Christian derived politics does a number of bad things and thus I began mentioning that also as a reason why naturalism should be adopted.

Your comments show that when atheistic naturalists don't mention concern for people's lives as part of the message of promoting naturalism that some Christians criticize them for that; and that if atheistic naturalists do mention concern for people lives as part of the message of promoting naturalism that some Christians criticize for that also. Figuratively speaking, the atheistic naturalists are dammed in the minds of some Christians if they don't and dammed in the minds of some Christians if they do.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze the words you quoted of Hawking forms part of a core basis of what Hawking said which convinced me no deistic being exists. Hawking says that gravity (by which he means the potential energy of gravity) is a type of negative energy. He says that because of its existence the grand sum total of the universe's mass-energy equals ZERO. That is because the sum of all of the negative energies cancels out all of the positive energies of the universe. Because of that (according to Hawking, Stenger, Lawrence M. Krauss, and other atheistic scientists) the universe could have come into existence from nothing (at least that which is commonly thought of as nothing) - without a being having created it. Lawrence M. Krauss is the physicist author of the book called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. One review of that book is the following.

“Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void -- a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History

Victor Stenger agrees with this and further points that out many of that which are called 'laws' of physics are conservation 'laws' (such as one which one which is stated as 'that matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed') and as such they could have arisen spontaneously. Victor Stenger gives a different explanation of the coming into existence (in the distant past) of other so-called 'laws' of physics.

Those scientists (and others) say that though there are that which are called 'laws' of science that does not mean they were made by a law maker (such as a creator god/God). The term "laws of science" simply means that the universe in a number of aspects acts in a consistent manner.

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing: Krauss, Lawrence M.: 9781451624465: Amazon.com: Books states the following from the Preface of the above-mentioned book by Krauss.

'Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of “nothing”—a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand “nothing.” (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.)

“Nothing,” they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is “nonbeing,” in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define “intelligent design” when I first began debating with creationists, of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn’t. “Intelligent design” is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing” as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.

But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.” It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.

A century ago, had one described “nothing” as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as “nothing,” but rather as a “quantum vacuum,” to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized “nothing.”

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe “nothing” as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect it would have been . . . at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this “nothing” is not really the nothing that matters. And we’re told that the escape from the “real” nothing requires divinity, with “nothing” thus defined by fiat to be “that from which only God can create something.”

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the “potential” to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness.

Turtles all the way down? I don’t believe so. ... Surely, invoking “God” to avoid difficult questions of “how” is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no potential for creation, then God couldn’t have created anything. It would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature and, therefore, the “potential” for existence itself is not a part of the nothingness from which existence arose.'

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze it is just a pause. I will make further pro-atheism posts and further rebuttals to remarks made to me by Christian apologists. You can count on that.

How about this one. Deism had what appeared to be a very strong case in the time when Newton lived and at least into the late 18th century, but such is no longer the situation. Reading something written by Hawking disproved (at least to me to beyond a reasonable doubt) that no deistic god exists in regards to our universe. Later I read some books by Victor Stenger which further strengthened the case (at leas tin my mind) against deism.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze I don't feel the need to address every remark (both online and offline) against something I said. It would be very time consuming and thus very tiresome to rebut every remark against something I said. I thus choose which remarks to respond to and which not to bother responding to. Even the Bible teaches there is a time to speak (including a time to reprove the speech of a foolish one) and a time not to do so (including a time to not reprove the speech of a foolish one). I've already been logged in steady on this site and making posts for four hours today and soon I should log off and do something else.

I also notice that a number of Christians (including yourself) have not answered many of the questions I posed to evangelical Christians about four hours ago (in the post which begins with the phrase of "Vanderhoven7 and other evangelical Christian ...).

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, in response to your question of "why don't you start your own thread on the wonders of naturalism instead of following Christians around and hijacking other people's threads just to discuss what you want to discuss" I say the following.

First off, I don't think of myself as hijacking any threads. I think of myself as making relevant comments in the threads.

Why do many Christians evangelize to non-Christians? Why do many Christians (even ones under the age of 12 - even ones who have not yet become baptized and thus are not yet officially Christians) walk up to strangers and offer Christian tracts and/or other Christian literature to them? Why have many JWs, Mormons, and other Christians gone house to house to evangelize to those not of their faith? Why did the apostle Paul go evangelizing to Jews and gentiles who did not already share his views about Christ?

I go to one of the places where the people are who don't accept naturalism as true. A few times I even went door-to-door in my neighborhood to promote atheism. I also few times had atheistic literature on display in public places and one time I gave a speech on the subject of the Bible not being God's word. I gave that speech (about 45 minutes long) outside in front of local library. I gave that speech about a month before I considered myself an atheist (though I had already stopped believing in God and the supernatural and thus considered myself a nontheist and a naturalist, though at the time I wasn't sure no deistic god exists).

Furthermore, I have created topic threads on this site about naturalism (including at least one thread about evidence of biological evolution). But several months ago the creator and moderator of this site placed a block on my account from me creating new topic threads on this site. As a result, on this site I can only post in already existing topic threads and there are few new topic threads on this site promoting naturalism.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I noticed a moment ago that you asked the following two questions to me. "Why do you yearn for others to join you in naturalism? What would this do for you if they did?" The answer is as follows.

In posts in other topic threads I have stated my reasons. In this post I rephrase them as follows.

I highly value truth and I despise superstition. I especially despise superstitions of the kind which are extremely prevalent in human society which are also heavily promoted in human society in my country (the USA). Some of these superstitions have been used as a foundation for the promotion of certain executive government policies and certain governmental legislation, and of the selection of certain people to the USA Supreme Court. I consider some of those actions (which used some Christian teachings as a basis) as very harmful to humans, and in some cases, also to the ecology of the planet.

Even when Christianity is not used as a basis for governmental actions, the acting on the basis of certain Christian ideas has done much harm. I and others were harmed intellectually and in other ways by the JW religion (and by certain statements in the Bible which I used to consider to be true). Many other former Christians were harmed by other types of Christianity. Many people who never were Christians were harmed (and many even were executed for not being Christians), by certain Christian ideas being put into practice. Some of the arguments against taking action against climate change (and not taking global warming seriously) are based by some teachings of Christianity (such the idea that the NT says God will burn up the Earth anyways, and very soon).

I want humanity to flourish. I believe that belief in supernaturalism, including belief in a personal God (including YHWH and Christ), is hindering human progress and hindering human flourishing. I believe that Roman Catholic Christianity greatly hindered human technological progress during the Middle Ages for about 1,000 years.

I believe that some Christian (and some non-Christian Jewish) teachings teach that women are second-rate humans and I believe that is both false and that it is harmful to human females.

I guess that my motivation for trying to persuade people to abandon Christianity and theism is much the same as that which motivated Thomas Paine to write The Age of Reason (during his life the first two volumes of it were published and later a book claiming to be the third volume was also published).

I could write more on this topic but I think the above is sufficient.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: Where i wrote "In the future I might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots" I meant to write 'In the future it might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots".

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I didn't say I am a materialist, I said I am a naturalist. You seem to equate the terms 'materialist' and 'naturalist'. I have brought this to your attention in at least one other post. There is a difference in philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism. I also think there is a subtle difference between "scientific naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism". I never l claimed to be a materialist, but rather a naturalist. That is because even before I ceased believing in supernaturalism I was aware of the philosophical arguments which say that materialism is incompatible with belief in numbers, logic, love, etc.

In my post I don't argue against the reality of non-material things in general, but rather I argue against the realty of specific non-material things - namely against the supernatural. That is a distinction which you seem to refuse to acknowledge. I am thus not inconsistent in this matter. Numbers, logic, and love, for examples, are a part of the universe and hence a part of nature (in the broad sense of the word 'nature').

The reason why I stopped believing in the supernatural (at least in regards to entities which are defined as interacting with humans) is because the evidence of them which should exist if they are real doesn't exist. To me you are presenting a 'straw man' argument against scientific naturalism and against philosophical naturalism.

My entire life experience has been totally devoid of the supernatural. I have investigated claims of the existence of the supernatural, including claims that supernatural phenomena manifests among humans but I have not found any conclusive evidence of such. In contrast, I have very frequently experienced mathematics, information, grammar, logic, reason, ideas, language, science, morality, truth, concepts, codes, loyalty, and emotions (including happiness, joy, misery, sadness, loneliness, anger, hate, fear, shyness, pleasure, desire, and forms of love).

The ideas of YHWH God, Baal, Zeus, a gremlin, and a fairy exist, but well beyond a reasonable doubt neither of them exist as a living being.

Yes I believe that mathematics, logic, and other so-called 'things' exist, though not directly consisting of matter-energy. PBS TV had a science episode in which scientists shared their idea of whether math exists or not. Some scientists believe it does and granted some others don't. I consider some of the 'things' in your list to be attributes of energy-matter when in various configurations. None of those things would exist if energy-matter never existed. Even before the universe (or multi-verse), as commonly defined, existed matter-energy in some form existed (such as quantum fluctuations). Love did not exist until biological life of certain kinds came to exist, since love is an attribute of the minds of some biological beings. In the future I might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7 and other Christians, what would it (if anything) take for you to stop being convinced of Christianity and of the NT's claims pertaining to the doctrines of Christianity? [I ask this partly because I am discouraged that my efforts to persuade Christians away from belief in Christianity and the Bible appear to be having almost no degree of success.]

From my perspective so much evidence and so much sound reasoning have made available to you on this site that Christianity is false, that much of the NT is false, and that much of the OT is false, yet you persist in believing in Christianity. Why? I am baffled that is it so hard for so many Christians of high intellect to cease persisting in believing in Christianity (even theistic Christianity, which is by far the most common form) despite them reading a considerable amount of the evidence and argumentation which has been presented against Christianity.

In my case, when I was a Christian prior to a few years before ceasing to be a God-believer I had read very little of such evidence and argumentation (and I had heard very little of such). Most the evidence I had read during that time was simply some of the scientific evidence that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, that scientists have discovered natural processes of the formation and ongoing cosmological change of the universe (including of the Earth), that according to the vast majority of scientists biological evolution (including human evolution) on planet Earth is a fact, and that the human mind is the product of the functioning human brain.

During that time (the time prior to a few years before I ceased to be a God-believer) I had read none of the evidence against Christianity and the Bible from atheists in literature promoting atheism. That is because I had not dared to read any pro-atheism literature. I had only encountered (namely in a college English literature course's book) a very brief amount of the evidence and argumentation in quotes of deistic literature (literature written in the late 1700s through the early 1800s by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine). But after a few years of me reading and studying much of such I ceased believing in Christianity, in the doctrinal claims of the NT and the OT, in YHWH God and Christ and Satan, and in the supernatural.

I yearn for the vast majority of human society, including the vast majority of humans of western civilization, including the vastly majority of humans of the USA, to embrace scientific naturalism (without embracing totalitarianism).