C0ntr013r

Joined

• started 35 topics
• posted 547 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by C0ntr013r

• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  You know, if I understand you correctly, your position is that of a Gnostic Atheist, hence you actually have the burden of proof. So if you can, please prove the non existence of god.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.

  It refers to you being guilty of a logical fallacy...

  The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy, you can google that to. It is usually refuted by: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.

  You clearly don't understand what the word "proof" means or you mean something different than me. To me "proof" is evidence and that must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.

  I don't know what models you have looked at and I would like you to give an example of such a model, one I heard about goes something along the lines of; A multiverse could be a explanation of the big bang, mathematical formulas show how such a model would work and how the universe could have been formed under such conditions.

  No evidence for a multiverse, no proof... But this is a hypothesis alongside many others.

  There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is a mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation.

  Study this a little and you will see that such "mathematical models" are by no means evidence. Or prove me wrong and link one that do.

  Lets say we lived a few thousand years ago and we thought that everything had a God. And I came up with the hypnosis that the God of rain was in love with the God of the rainbow. I did many observations to show that this could be the case. This would not be proof, it would just be a way to explain what I saw.

  It is the same way with these models, we come up with reasons for what we see, try to make sense of them with hypothesis, but the calculations that built the hypnosis is in no way evidence for that hypothesis...

  There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?

  I have no idea, you tell me.

  I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.

  Atheism is in no way, shape or form science. Wikipedia it if you don't believe me... Neither is Theism, Deism or any other belief system.
  
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.

  No, a hypothesis is either proved or disproved, not rejected because there is no evidence. Usually there is something that indicates the idea could be true for the hypothesis to be formed thou.

  There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is an idea entertained in science and in some of our models.

  As I said before; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic, Afairyistic, Axenuistic, Agiantspacepenistic. However it always remains open to the possibilities if serious scientific evidence were to emerge.
  

  Atheism is in regard to belief, not fact nor science.

  When I have asked Atheist's, a question like "What science do you feel Supports the non existence of God" Predictably The Atheist has responded with "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."

  "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."

  This is not science nor proof that supports the non existence of God.

  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
• 
  65

  [Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

  by C0ntr013r in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

  part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  Seems like the secular authorities in Nevada take child safety and protection far more seriously than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Naa, JWs take it very seriously. Just look here:
  

  42. If more than 20 years have passed and a former child abuser has a good record in the truth and the branch office decides that he could be appointed to a position of trust—such as an elder, ministerial servant, or regular pioneer—the congregation elders will not have to pass on information regarding the past sin to another congregation’s elders.

  See, it has to go 20 years before he can be an elder after his last known child abuse. 20 years! ;)
  
  
• 
  10

  How long will all the confidential material be available?

  by C0ntr013r in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  this is certainly a gold mine of information:.

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  wifibandit

  
  

  Could the names of the documents or some description be added so it will be easier to see what everything is?

  Thanks for doing this!
• 
  65

  [Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

  by C0ntr013r in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

  part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  You think they may have had coaching from helpful XJWs?

  Well, they must at least have read the Ex JW and Ex Elder Monty Bakers statement since he will testify next week.

  I cant find his statement on their webpage so I dot know what it says. But they must have read it, so they would have had some Ex JW influence.

  (I think it will be added to their webpage after his testimony like the others)
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  The Simple System = An Unnatural object has never been formed or brought into existence without the actions or force of an Intelligent Being.

  How do you know this?

  Complicated quantum system = Like Unnatural objects All Natural objects must be formed and brought into existence by an Intelligent being.

  Except for God? You say all; "Unnatural objects and All Natural objects must be formed" but then you want to make a exception for God. If you believe in God, then you think that there are "things" that can exists without being created by a intelligent designer. Why should we make the exception for God, when it comes to this "rule" of yours?
• 
  449

  Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

  by LAWHFol in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

  i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

  "atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  C0ntr013r

  First off, Atheism or Theism is a statement of what you believe or don't believe. An Atheist can be Gnostic or Agnostic, sure or not sure.

  I think you are referring to the fact that the claim: "there is no God" is unscientific and I would agree with you. But most Atheist are not Gnostic, they are Agnostic. A belief can not be "wrong" in the same sense as a fact. If there are no aliens, the statement; "there are aliens" would be wrong, but; "I believe in aliens but I don't know if they exists" would not be wrong. Therefor any Agnostic position can not be "wrong" since it means you don't know, this is true for both Agnostic Theists, Desists, Atheists, and all other belief systems.

  It is not unscientific because It does not deal with science.

  "What science do you feel Supports the non existence of God" Predictably The Atheist has responded with "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."

  That is just shifting around the burden of proof... There is no proof of Gods none existence, and how could there be? Because there is no: "Evidence or Proof of God with Science by empirical Evidence."

  And shifting around the burden of proof is something Theists and Atheists love doing...

  Usually the Atheist would say: "you claim there is a man in the sky, so you prove that it is true"

  The funny thing is that if the Theist is Agnostic and the Atheist is Gnostic, the Atheist would have the burden of proof. And vice versa.

  Since this is a fundamental flaw in your premise your understanding and reasoning is not correct. I don't blame you thou, most people lack a good understanding of what they are talking about when it comes to this area, read all the definitions to get a better understanding on Wikipedia.

  Cheers!