Posts by Saintbertholdt

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

C0ntr013r,

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

Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation. The paper gained acceptance based upon the mathematics alone HOWEVER Einstein still had to wait for 1919 until Arthur Eddington verified it with the eclipse experiment. With no proof special relativity would have been discarded over time.

You should have noted that I used the word "suggest". If you are a scientist this term should be well known to you and what it implies. You are either NOT versed in scientific/mathematical literature or you are constructing a straw man. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and regard our exchange as remedial. Please see: How to Prove It A Structured Approach - Daniel J Velleman

Papers for mathematical multiverses and unified theories abound. This is not controversial and multiverse and unified theory discussions are derailing this thread.

Also please don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Saintbertholdt

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Saintbertholdt

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 a thought entertained in science and in some of our models.

1. 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.

2. There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation. HOWEVER the only way any mathematical model will be accepted will be through experiment and observation.

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

I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Saintbertholdt

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

Yes like the belief that fairies don't exist. One cannot disprove that fairies don't exist.

So why aren't scientific papers written about fairies? (Except in relation to anthropology)

The fact is that the faith and belief that fairies do not exist transfers into scientific thought and action.

Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.

In science there is ONE measure: Experiment!

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

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.

Saintbertholdt

LAWHFol,
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."
Your statement above is correct. In your post you also explain why this reasoning is supposedly incorrect. However by your own measure -

One also cannot prove that Elves do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Fairies do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Lord Xenu does not exist.
One also cannot prove that the universe is not the ejaculate of a Giant Space Penis.

So based upon your reasoning science cannot make any statements about the above because it can't disprove these examples empirically.

however

Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose. For example: When botanists study pollination of plants, they do not seriously consider the possibility that fairy's do this job at night. They don't present this as a possible alternate theory in scientific papers. Why? It is inefficient because it clouds the real evidence (insects, wind etc) for pollination and does not contribute anything to an understanding of the subject. Now if solid scientific evidence were to emerge for fairies pollinating plants then it would be incorporated into human scientific knowledge and would alter humanities perspective accordingly....

The simple facts are as follows:
1. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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

9

Questions that don't deserve their own topic thread (QTDDTOTT)

by Saintbertholdt in

i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.

as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.

for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?

Saintbertholdt

If you could compel all GB members to be strapped to a lie detector and you could ask them one question, what would that be? (Must be a ? with YES or NO answer).

Have you ever willfully ignored Biblical evidence to protect old teachings?

9

Questions that don't deserve their own topic thread (QTDDTOTT)

by Saintbertholdt in

i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.

as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.

for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?

Saintbertholdt

Um, so I have two quick questions: Who gave the memorial talk for Nathan Knorr? Is it available somewhere for download?

9

Questions that don't deserve their own topic thread (QTDDTOTT)

by Saintbertholdt in

i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.

as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.

for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?

Saintbertholdt

Hello there,

I haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so I thought I might start one. As the Title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers. For example: How many meetings do the witnesses have per week? Where can I download a copy of the latest Watchtower magazine? Who was C T Russell?

I would suggest when answering a question, just include the question at the top of your answer. (If this thread becomes very long this could be useful)

So lets see how this goes :)

47

A few facts to ponder

by Nitty-Gritty in

i have been in correspondence recently with silentambs and a few interesting things have been highlighted.

some of you may know, that bill bowen has twice tried to get the fbi involved in investigating child molestation issues in the jws org.

this is what he said to me, i quote: we have reported to the fbi on two occasions and were rebuffed due to them not wishing to get involved with a religion.

Saintbertholdt

Also Nitty-Gritty don't you want the authorities to turn on your precious religion so the desert god gets pissed enough to push the big Armageddon button????

Perhaps he has weighed the organization and found them too lite?

Anyway why are we talking about the FBI, when if the UK and AUS models are followed it will end up with congressional hearings. Now that would be fun.

47

A few facts to ponder

by Nitty-Gritty in

i have been in correspondence recently with silentambs and a few interesting things have been highlighted.

some of you may know, that bill bowen has twice tried to get the fbi involved in investigating child molestation issues in the jws org.

this is what he said to me, i quote: we have reported to the fbi on two occasions and were rebuffed due to them not wishing to get involved with a religion.

Saintbertholdt

"In other words the government does not care about child abuse right? Wrong."

They do definitely care. There is just not probable cause yet. Which is coming.

"IF JWs were involved in criminal activity as you all insinuate then staying out of religions way would go out of the window."

That is correct. Organizations like for example the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones or Warren Jeff's cult were shown to have an agenda of violating or subverting the law at the leadership level, and were investigated. Same goes for the Watchtower. If their policies are cultivating a culture of protecting pedophiles (willfully or through stupidity) they will be investigated eventually.

"All the discussions and criticism of how JWs handle child abuse are based on conjecture."

Not really. The US government is just slow in pursuing established religious organizations due to "the wall of separation between church and state". However the Royal commission and the Charity commissions work will contribute to the eventual public outcry. The Watchtower have had a chance to walk the biblical two miles instead of one, and chose to ignore secular warning signs.

"And it is because of conjecture the government won't do anything."

The US government is slow and careful when it comes to established religions. The the Royal commission and the Charity commission is going to wake them up a bit. You don't want the FBI to wake up a bit.