Sorry (hopeless with 'puters')
try SAFETY INVESTIGATION OF NOAH'S ARK IN A SEAWAY
I will look for more when I have time. try.
Of Late Many Here Seem To Be Preaching Aethiesm..
by Qcmbr 167 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Qcmbr
When I first came here a while back there was plenty of discussion around and about JW topics and general chit chat but of late I've felt quite a sharp increase in posts that are:
1/ Preaching aethism (as opposed to putting it forward in a respectful way as an alternate viewpoint.)
2/ Vitriolic attacks on those who dare have another view ('damn those stupid heretical believers')
And you say "Without a belief in God you are my enemy and I owe you nothing", as nicolau points out. I can't think of one occasion where an atheist has made such a clear and vitriolic attack on all theists - they might think of (some) religious people as credulous, but to declare ALL atheists an enemy; you need a religionists for that.
Of course, if someone claims they have education in an area they don't actually have (I could name names), makes false claims (I could name names), uses poor quality and deceptive 'scientific' material (I could name names), or generally is a judgemental preaching ass (I could name names), I have no bones what-so-ever in being facetious, sarcastic, caustic, ironic or whatever else amuses me in responding to their piffle.
Someone who has a decent attitude and a decent argument gets treated with respect almost without exception, even if they don't agree with me. Most threads that degenerate are cause by lack of respect spreading like wildfire.
3/ General back slapping and self congratulatory brown nosing amongst those within this godless dogma.
Now, don't be sore just because theists are yet to prove the existence of theos (or any supernatural event of any description, ever) and thus have no reason to slap backs or be self congratulatory. I am sure there was high-fiving among certain theists, yay, unto the mountainous region of Ephraim, when that fake stone ossory (which allegedly had contained the bones of James brother of Christ) was initially announced to be genuine. It went bloody quiet when it was later revealed to be fake. Speaking of fakes... where are those golden plates? Oh... of course, you like dishing it out but not taking it...
4/ A new 'leadership' within this cult of disbelief who take turns spewing hate / disdain and boasting about their cleverness and the idiocy of anyone not laughing and pointing fingers with them. I find it interesting that there is a new pied piper who dances between the camp of believers and non-believers weaving populist mockery around and is loving himself beyond belief under his cloak of scholarly wisdom (well done Shining One for taking him to task - I agree with you 100%)
Why not have the balls to actually say who you are trying to character assassinate? Or are directness and honesty not characteristics we can expect from a hypocrite? Or course, having attacked other people you'll now whine and complain that you in turn are attacked, ignoring you've just been DESCRIBED. Describing Shining One as taking anyone to task is simply hilarious, but as your argument and his argument devolve to "I am right because I am right", I can understand the attraction. Unfortunately you, again, show the hypocrisy of your stance, as there you go, "back slapping and self congratulatory brown nosing" when you don;t like that behaviour among those you disagree with.
One thing that makes me sad about here is that the professed friendliness of many here is sadly revealed as an utter sham (unless you agree with them) and those who use this place as an excuse to bully, call names and wallow in their own crapulence soon reveal their real 'loving' side as soon as a anyone dares disagree. I think that most here are still genuine, nice people bonding together well after a shared trauma but there are some real loud shouters here who have altered the feel in the air IMO.
I am glad I am not the cynical, ill-willed individual your above out-bursts makes you seem.
I've been stewing over how my enjoyment in posting and chatting here has gone and been replaced by feelings of hurt and uncomfortableness - I really hope that its me who is at fault here (ie no one else is feeling this). If so ignore the above, I apologise for speaking out of turn and I'll fade away. I don't need to take abusive in my free time.
YOU need to ask WHY our postings end up in you feeling that way. You are blaming everyone but yourself. If you engaged in topics without sweeping condemnations of people, or asserting your beliefs and then admitting almost with pride you don't intend to support your opinion, you might be treated differently. Take some responsibility for your own actions. I know this is hard for a religionists to do, but try anyway. Anyhow, for someone who "don't need to take abusive in my free time", you sure as hell dish it out.
stillajwexelder
When people see others butchering others and terrorism and huge deaths in Natural Disasters - and The Anglo-American world power bombing people in Iraq - and suicide bombers etc,. etc. the argument is "How the f--- can there be a God?"
Actually, you'll find most atheists don't believe in god because of the lack of evidence for god, not because of the logical arguments about the unlikelihood of a god due to the existence of evil.
SWALKER
The thread you used as an example; it is a FACT that some ID-ers and Creationists (big-C indicating in this case literalists insisting on an actual six-day creation as the only possibility) can be shown to use a/ bad science and b/ dishonesty.
People might not like the fact some of their co-religionists are being called on their behaviour, but tough. They should deal with it, not object to well supported and well-reasoned exposes of ID-ot and Creationist trash. Why don't they berate their co-religionists for not keeping to the principles of their faith in their rabid defence of superstitions that many Christians nowadays feel are irrelevant to whether one believes in God or Jesus?
It is also a fact that many on the religionists or theist side of the debate make it very hard for themselves being credible by discussing complex issues they have not studied to any great depth. Again, people might not like me saying this, but it is true and supported by countless threads.
Another comment that caught my eye was by Big Dog, that religionists want respect for their object of worship. He's right.
Tough for religionists. If they were a Thuggee, should I respect their object of worship? And do they show respect for others beliefs? No, often they do not.
Someone with zippo-de-do-dah knowledge of science shows no respect when they think they can prove the entire science community wrong with half-an-hour on a website that doesn't even engage in peer-review.
It is a white-collar/blue-collar thing. If a Creationist insisted that to carve wood you needed a piece of chalk and a pickle, and said that someone who had been a carpenter for 40 years was wrong to say you needed a chisel and a hammer, people would laugh at them for being a buffoon.
Somehow it is acceptable for someone with the same lack of knowledge to make equally absurd statements about science in the face of decades of experience. Because it is an 'intellectual' thing, the work and experience of experts is mocked by those with no knowledge, whereas if they were experienced in other areas, those with no knowledge of those areas would be mocked for disagreeing with the experts.
And I can show you plenty of examples where Christians show contempt and disrespect for other religions on this board.
If they WANT it, they should GIVE it, and not whine about it.
Of course, as we live in a physical world with set rules and ways of proving whether something is real, it is no surprise that religionists (whose beliefs are not provable by those set ways and rules) get pissy, as they end up in logical dead ends where "I am right because I am right" ends up being a mantra. They FEEL the cognitive dissonance of their poor arguments and lash out at others to ease the tension within themselves, as they are not emotionally equipped for more change, even if they have shown bravery and character in leaving the Dubbies. They put a new baby in dirty bath water, to spin an old retort on its head. Pointing out the water is dirty so the baby won't get clean pisses them off, and they get oversensitive and defencive.
Some of the most signal examples of this behaviour on this board WERE never Dubbies, they HAVE never got themselves out of a cult, and if they DID have the misfortune to have been born in, show a closed-minded personality type which would have probably kept them in their entire lives EVEN IF they were exposed to contrary views. Arguments with them are as likely to be as futile as those with Dub.
Golf
Qcmbr, stand your ground
Oh, no, not more religionist "General back slapping and self congratulatory brown nosing". Man, fish in a barrel...
If he did (stand his ground) he might get more respect. But he has a tendency to say things like "I can't be bothered to prove it", which is just another complacent excuse, the "I am right because I am right" mantra. If people can't be bothered to equip themselves to have a decent discussion BUT STILL WANT TO TAKE PART, why should I be bothered to take them seriously?
Likewise, trying to prove god with a Biblical quotation is like trying to prove love with a Shakespearian sonnet. The quotation might seem relevant, but the fact that it supports a belief in love or god is irrelevant as it does not supply external proof.
It is saying "I am right because I am right". You might find that level of discussion satisfying. I don't. Look at the comments by marsh; her post might mean something to her, but not to someone else. Like you say, there are billions of people on this planet.
They can be divided into groups largely determined by place of birth, whom all have the tendency to believe all other groups are wrong about their ideas of god. Christians are especially prone to ignoring the BILLIONS of people who have no exposure to or interest in Christianity, even if they know of it's existence. This is a big problem, as the type of 'proof' religionists offer is typically of the same level of quality regardless of what religion is being proved and by whom. It all boils down to someone saying "I am right because I am right".
Ross
sarcasm (the lowest form of wit).
An aphorism is not proof of a form of humour being invalid or lacking in relevance, especially when used immediately after using caustic humour YOURSELF to make a point.
I don't really get the idea that we have to discourse on a refined elevated field free of any of the spice, spark or snap you get in a REAL discussion. You don't have a problem yourself, but so many people need to get over themselves when it comes to the rough-stuff of discussion.
You yourself say;
Anyhow, he can take it, and I think we all enjoy the verbal sparring and flurry of emoticons
How is it on the edge of the world? Greetings from Kate.
JT is again saying things in a way I wish I could, even when he says things I don't agree with 100%. I basically find smorgasbordic concepts of 'god' are the only ones that remain credible nowadays, whether is a re-heated secularised Vedic concept of Atman and atman, i.e. 'all is god', or wacky Jesuit musings on god being the direction of evolution toward greater complexity, or Robert Heinlein's "all that groks is god".
Of course, with many of these what we end up doing is just coming up with a "Hallmark moment". It's a way of saying things that don't impact on our life in tangible fashion but give the individual an intangible benefit. The diffuse personality-less 'god' we might be part of is beyond proof, as it's more in the idea than the actuality. They are humanistic philosophies (if your fellow man is also part of god it's probably a good idea to be nice to him) with an added layer of psychobabble. This is not an insult.
You see, just as doing astrology or I-Ching may allow people to use meaningless systems of symbols to draw a personal insight (with a perceived benefit) out from someone (even if it has no external reality) , THINKING of god as real (especially as pervasive and defuse) may be beneficial to some people, regardless of the external reality. Some people need chocolate. They are not bad people. Some people need god. They are not bad people. Nor are those who don't need chocolate or god.
Goodness is not determined by belief, it is determined by ACTION.
hooberus
why not?
Oh god hooberus, please rebut the evidence previously provided to you in ample quantity. The Flood didn't happen. You use evasion and excuse to prevent dealing with the evidence presented.
See how you respond to nic;
nicolaou, you are the one on this thread that first made assertions (ie: that genetics somehow disproves the Genesis account) when you stated: "The human race cannot be decended from the restricted gene pool of 8 'post-flood' humans, much less 2 'edenic' ones!" - Therefore, perhaps you should "first prove" your own assertions.
You KNOW you can't prove Biblical chronology relating to a Global Flood is even possible. So you evade it. Yet knowing that the very chronology you base your assertions on is deeply flawed, you carry on building on those false assumptions.
I have no problem with you being self-deceptive; please try to avoid deceiving others.
You can of course prove me wrong by showing how terrible and unreliable the dendrochronology of bristle cone pines is, or alternately by showing almost all archaeologists are utterly wrong about the dating of certain buildings. However, you won't, on past behaviour, and will continue to show the contempt and disregard of modern science you display even though you have never, not once on this board proved a Creationist argument. Evaded? LOADS. All that tends to happen is the reliability of the sources you quote is shown to be very suspect... yet you carry on using them. Don't give your co-religionists a bad name.
marsh
If you think AIG is a reputable site, you have been deceived. Here is one example; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100566/1735328/post.ashx#1735328
Please feel free to ask me to show similar levels of unreliability and poor science are present in most of the articles on that site relating to Young-Earth Creationism and its attendant dating conceits. You name an article, I'll de-bunk it. Just because they have put words together in a way that pleases and convinces you doesn't mean it is true. You may indeed have to do some proper research and study yourself if you are serious about knowing things. If you just want to FEEL like you are right by waving around bad science (without knowing how bad it is), feel free, but don't expect to impress anyone other than those who, along with you, are essentially saying "I am right because I am right".
-
LittleToe
Belief in God(s) is not mutually exclusive with certain beliefs pertaining to evolution/creation/genetic diversity, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorah, Masonic handshakes, or a wide range of other things.
Marsh:
It will not change my mind though as I am a believer
May I ask for your articles of faith?
Do you have the same level of belief in you interpretation of the "flood" account in Genesis as you do, say, of a creator God?
-
Scully
oldflame:
What I fing odd is that those who were witnesses when they were in, had a genuine love for God but when they left the society they grew a strong hate for God as if it were Gods fault that they themselves were deceived. For years they claimed to have a accurate knowledge of scriptures and believed in Heaven and Hell , but now have lost there faith in the creator.
I have noticed that these who hate God or lost their belief in God have become bitter and angry and in turn result in bitter name calling, lashing out evil words towards those who still believe. I guess those who are atheist think that because they lost their own faith feel that it is absurd for anyone else to keep their faith in the Lord.
Good grief. Just how broad of a brush are you painting all of us atheists with?
Try looking at it from a different perspective: When we were JWs, we learned how to identify all other religions as false. Then when the JWs proved that they were also false, there wasn't really anything to rely on besides logic. Any belief system that can be eliminated by using logic is not worth adopting, to many atheists.
That doesn't make us hateful or bitter or evil. C'mon. Osama bin Laden believes in God/Allah. So does George W. Bush. And you stoop to call atheists "evil"? Sheesh.
-
hooberus
nicolaou said:
I did, and in fact you quoted me in your previous post. Now unless Adam & Eve each had many more than 23 pairs of chromosomes (which would make them non-human) how would you account for the incredible genetic diversity that exists amongst humans today?
Remember, two people can carry four alleles at most between them for any given locus [The position that a given gene occupies on a chromosome.]
As previously pointed out, mutations would have arrisen since creation and the flood generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/39893/574203/post.ashx#574203 -
LittleToe
Gyles:
An aphorism is not proof of a form of humour being invalid or lacking in relevance, especially when used immediately after using caustic humour YOURSELF to make a point.
I'm just here for the banter
I don't really get the idea that we have to discourse on a refined elevated field free of any of the spice, spark or snap you get in a REAL discussion.
I completely agree old chap, however a conversation that continually used a particular form of humour, or a manner of speech that was continually, and unnecessarily, affected, would soon grate on one
You don't have a problem yourself, but so many people need to get over themselves when it comes to the rough-stuff of discussion.
True, true. This thread being a prime example.
Anyhow, he can take it, and I think we all enjoy the verbal sparring and flurry of emoticons
The level of teasing and taunting that I engage in with the likes of yourself and Tetra, et al, is all part of the fun, in my book. If I was genuinely jaded I'd refrain my speech else take it to PM
How is it on the edge of the world? Greetings from Kate.
The edge of the world is unabashedly edgy.
Smooches to your gorgeous fiance
I've been a little quieter on the board, due to real-life, too. However, I'm gently reminded that I need to visit the postoffice
-
AlmostAtheist
I will look for more info when I have time,It will not change my mind though as I am a believer
Have you always been a believer? Have you always believed exactly as you do now?
If either of those questions is 'No', what happened to lead you into a new belief? And why are you certain that could never happen again?
I lived with absolute certainty as a JW. Now that I've shucked it off, I find myself much more comfortable with my world. It surprises me, and I like it. I'm an atheist today, a "believer" if you will. But new information could come up in the next ten minutes and I could change those beliefs instantly, no harm done. I think that's a good thing. It feels like the best way for me to be -- open to change.
Dave
-
JamesThomas
Gumby:
So what. What point are you trying to make about the fact that life is untouched? Life is life while it's alive. Once life is gone, it ceases to exist...so I'd say it was touched.
Yes, generally we attribute "Life" only to the active breathing and activity of an entity, and when that is gone, so life. On a phenomenal level, on a level of thing-ness, that certainly seems the case. What I am attempting to point to is that which is not a thing, the silent conscious-existence within you, that, which is most close and intimate, that which sees the story of life/death. Upon sufficient investigation into conscious-awarness, it can be revealed to be indescribably pristine and totally untouched by any and all phenominal happenings. It's very much like you having a dream last night that the world ended; yet, the consciousness in-which the dream unfolded and existed within, remained pure and untouched. This may sound crazy. It does not fit into the paradigm of reality that we generally accept as true. That, is why you can not believe what I say; it has to be seen first hand by you. It seems we have to care enough about discovering the ultimate truth of our identity and reality to stop thinking and intellectualizing about it, and instead radically shift attention inwards into our most close and intimate sense of being and see just how deep it does go. Who/what, are we at the Core?This may sound like a cop-out, but it's you who hold the keys. It's not important what I see. It's important what you see. That Jesus realized a Oneness with the Father, so what! What is there within you yet to realize? That's what matters. Yes?
What do you mean...be present? You say look into whats looking. Who is the one that is looking, and where do I look to find out? You've got some splainin to do Lucy!
From what I have found, we need to be still for times and watch the mind so that there comes a clear distinction between the minds active interpretation of life, and the actual, unthinkable, beingness of Life. You may have noticed that the most beautiful and precious moments are those when we just kind of dissolve into the moment and there is no thought, judgment or interpretations going on. Like in the highest moments of making love, there is no thought, no wall or separation between us and our beloved. There is just the naked oneness of the moment.
By being present, I mean meeting with life without thinking about it. Really feel what it is to breath and exist. Turn attention toward the rawness of life. Really open to the intimacy of life and being, void of judgment. You will notice that turning attention towards the aliveness of life is actually turning it inwards. The universe unfolds from within you. Do less thinking and more Being.
Ya know, ya gumbastard, it's like you keep asking me what San Francisco is like, and I point and say "it's that way over the bridge". You have to go there.
j
-
nicolaou
hooberus
You've fallen into the same hole as the good Dr Batten you like to quote - you need to prove your premises before you build on them.
As previously pointed out, mutations would have arrisen since creation and the flood generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus.
The Creation and the Flood are two unprovables, to build on them is even worse than building a house on sand. And anyway, do you realise that you very nearly propounded evolution?
"mutations would have arrisen [sic] ........ generating many additional allele variants beyond the initial four alleles at a given locus."
-
funkyderek
nicolau:
And anyway, do you realise that you very nearly propounded evolution?
Not only that, but hooberus's beliefs require an absurdly fast rate of evolution.
hooberus believes that a little over 4,000 years ago the earth's population consisted of Noah and his three sons and their wives. Mr. and Mrs. Noah were well past breeding age, so the maximum number of alleles that could have existed in the breeding population then for any one gene was twelve (and that would require two mutations in Noah's sons). There is at least one human gene with over 300 known alleles (HLA-DRB1). Getting from there to here (about 200 generations, probably less) would require a functional mutation to occur more than once every generation. And that's just for one gene! Many other genes have dozens of alleles. The rate of mutation hooberus requires us to believe in is mind-boggling. No such mutation rates have ever been observed.