JW’s & Atheists - Great (Cultic) Minds Think Alike

by Perry 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WTWizard

  What happens when Jehovah and Allah meet? Remember, each is intolerant of any competition. And, each has people that will stake their very lives on that their God exists. And yet both cannot exist at the same time--look at the wars that Christians and Muslims have got into on both sides. Muslims fly planes into Christians' buildings, while Christians occupy Islam lands and refuse to get out of them years after their leader is killed. Imagine all the disarray if both Jehovah and Allah existed--each would be fighting to claim the other's territory.

  This means that one or both of these Gods has to be non-existent. Yet, which is it? Both will stake their very lives that their side is right--yet, one or both has to be wrong. This alone is reason to doubt the existence of any God that is willing to actually reward you for anything you do.

  And, even if there should be a God, what proof is there that He is anything more than an Almighty Lowlife Scumbag that exists just to interfere with us? If that is the case, then heaven would be nothing more than a place where everything you do is what you are told to. No joy is possible there. Hell is nothing more than a threat intended to prevent people from doing real good now, and this God will do all He can to make rules (and infest everyone with them) that prevent progress. He could in fact present Himself into two or more mutually incompatible Beings designed to prevent anyone from reaching perfection in any form. Better to just accept that either God does not exist, or that He is so wicked and vile that one should not obey Him.
• 

  brinjen

  Coming a little late into this thread I realise. Couldn't help but notice the irony of Perry telling the many, many atheists (*raises hand* yes, another one here) what they believe... all because an essay told him so.

  Perry, you can't categorise anyone... everyone has their own set of values and their own set of beliefs based upon their own set of experiences. Your responses are to me, a bit like telling Naomi Wolf her biggest priority must getting the colour co-ordination of her hand bag and shoes right. She is female after all...
• 

  Caedes

  This service will pause briefly while Perry looks up Naomi Wolf on wikipedia.
• 

  brinjen

  This service will pause briefly while Perry looks up Naomi Wolf on wikipedia.

  
• 

  nicolaou

  I thought I'd explained myself in simple enough terms to be understood, obviously I failed.

  Perry, the triangle represents the Universe as it exists! I absolutely agree with your pasted comments from various scientists that if the values varied even a little then our Universe could not support us, but that was precisely my point! If the values (angles) were different then whatever Universe existed it would not be a 'triangular' one in which you and I could even discuss it!

  See the point Perry?
• 

  Perry

  Nicolaou,

  Not trying to be nit-picky but., initially you seemed to indicate a 1:1 relationship beween a triangle and the universe:

  Could you (or God) create a triangle with values that are any different? Even by a fraction of 1 degree? NO! That could very well be how the Universe is. There are no values that are finely tuned - they simply could not be any other way!

  Of course a trinagle couldn't be any other way, but the universe isn't a triangle. It has infinite possibilities relating to the alleged "randomness" that atheists claim created it. Just a few of those maximum deviations are listed on this chart:

  Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
  Parameter	Max. Deviation
  Ratio of Electrons:Protons	1:10 37
  Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity	1:10 40
  Expansion Rate of Universe	1:10 55
  Mass of Universe1	1:10 59
  Cosmological Constant	1:10 120
  These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

  This is the atheist god - unmasked, exposed. This is the reason many atheists subscribe to the brain numbing falsehood that atheism is about "without belief" rather than being "without God" as I demonstrated in the opening post. It is merely a thought-stopping technique identical to the one that Jehovah's Witnesses use when they claim that Jesus is their Mediator even when you show them where it is written in WT literature. They will also claim to be part of the New Covenant until you remind them that they reject it at the Lord's Supper. Most JW's do not know what they believe even as most atheists don't know what they believe - having been told by the likes of Dawkins that they don't believe in anything unverifiable.

  Now why do I take the time to do this? For one thing, it is relaxing to me. I'm a little high-strung and talking to Jehovah's Witnesses and atheists makes me feel normal, calm. Secondly, and more importantly I value choice. When I was a Jehovah's Witness, I really wished that someone would have taken the time to explain what it was that I really believed. ie., the fictional salvation without Christ as Mediator outside the New Covenant nonsense. Looking back I really believe that would have whalloped me upside my thick Sicilian/Irish head.

  Now "some" JW's really ARE OK with thier imaginary deal with Judgment Day that they believe the GB has cut with God on their behalf. Being unable to explain it from the bible doesn't bother them in the least.

  Likewise some atheists enjoy believing in the impossible randomness that they assert created our near infinitely finely tuned universe. Others, see these odds and withold judgment on the matter. The point is, that when things are out in the open... actual choices can be made. It was the thought-stopping technique of claiming atheism is about "without belief" that was the primary impetus for this thread.

  Of course, the moment an atheist contemplates God, he is then forced to imagine a First Cause without the slightest inkling of justice. Because if the First Cause is Just, then there will be a Judgment Day just as He repeatedly claims that there will be. Re-coiling from such a prospect the atheist is forced back into his hole of random infinity. It is a hole that is very deep and uncomfortable for him, because it's very nature is against the logic that the atheist seeks to live by. It is a hole "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".

  It is the same pit of impossibility that the JW is backed into when he is confronted with the blood of Jesus.

  NO ONE will be in Hell that did not CHOOSE to go there.
• 

  Elemental

  Exactly my point from before! The creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I challenge you to prove me wrong.

  Elsewhere,

  I find it amusing when atheists claim they know everything there is to know in the universe for that is very knowledge that you are claiming to have when you say that you KNOW there is no spaghetti monster out there, or God or unicorn or whatever else that you have never seen. God knows that most atheists accept something far more absurd in my opinion and that is that all life came from a naturally occurring blind happenstance despite the fact that every law of entropy is against the idea. Given the choice of which I think has more chance of existing; either the spaghetti monster or the stupidity that all life came from nothing…I will opt for the spaghetti monster being a more plausible outcome.

  Do I believe there is a God? Yes I do. Do I also believe that there could be unicorns, aliens, and leprechauns? Absolutely. For you see unlike you I do not discredit an idea just because it does not fit into my preconceived world view. Frankly, I am astounded that you in the rest of the atheists cannot understand that it is logically impossible to disprove anything.

  But such contradictive thinking is what I have come to expect from atheists as they never play by their own “logical” rules anyway. I will give you a few examples of this contradictive thinking…

  For example…

  On the one hand atheists laugh at the idea that an almighty God produced a woman out of a rib but have no issue of accepting the idea of cloning a sheep.

  They feel that it is utter nonsense to think that a being superior to humans caused a snake to talk and that the Creator of all life cause an ass to speak but have no issue of accepting that chimps learned to talk all by themselves.

  They talk about the stupidity of the idea of the story of the parting of the Red Sea but marvel at the idea that a scientist did this very thing by parting water in a laboratory in Japan using magnetic force (deemed the “Moses Effect.”)

  They feel that the idea of a God bringing a dead body back to life after three days by repairing physical damage is absurd but will have no issue of accepting the idea that random chance did the same thing when the first cell came into existence in the primordial soup over billions of years with no assistance to assure its survival.

  They feel that it is ridiculous to talk about the idea of how similarity in species indicates intelligent design by a being who knew how to make these things work but have no issue with believing this was all was done by…no one.

  They scold me for accepting the “nonsense” of the Gospels because I was not there to see the events and then they tell me that the Gospels were all made up and were copying each other by referencing a gospel that no one has actually ever seen.

  They come to me telling me that Paul cannot be a witness to the resurrection because he was imagining seeing Jesus ten years after the events then quote men who used imagined explanations born two thousand years after the events to prove it.

  They say that it is foolish for a Christian believer in God to claim that life came from God because the evidence points to it but atheists like Richard Dawkins used this same line of reasoning when explaining why he accepts evolution.

  I could give many other examples of this contradictive thinking but I think that I have made my point very clear. It is the so called intellectuals I have found are not as intelligent as they think they are for if they were they would realize that they come to me saying that my relationship with Christ is all imagined and I am an idiot and then prove it using evidence that came out of their imagination. They tell me that I am blind for not accepting evolution (macro that is) and then use the same mental blindness when it comes to seeing the possibility of God. They claim that all Christians are fools for believing in “sky daddy” and then prove it by blindly accepting random chance.

  So in conclusion if I had to say who was more intelligent the person who accepted that there was a unicorn or you who say (or seem to say from what I have read) that all things came from nothing but blind chance…

  I opt for the believer of the unicorn to be more intelligent because a mutated horse with a horn is far more rational; only an imbecile believes something came out of nothing…
• 

  Spook

  Perry has repeated this same chart on two threads, and I have twice evicerated the sophistries and vacuous tomfooleries of the argument. Perry, if you must know what most consider the best theistic argument it is called the Argument From Reason, popularized by C.S. Lewis and tooled into formality best by Victor Reppert. It involves lengthy and challenging metaphysics. This argument is bunk, and most theistic philosophers would admit it as so.

  To calculate the actual improbabilty of any of these constants (an almost non-sensical range) you would have to know

  A = The probability listed in your table, but derived from a unified theory of physics which could predict the secondary results on other constants of a change in one of these listed constants.

  B = The background possible range of these constants, which is purely hypothetical and unknowable since they are constants.

  A/B = Ratio of the possible life sustaining value range out of the range of total possible values.

  What you currently have is

  A = X

  B = X

  A/B = X/X = 1

  Get back to me when you solve string theory. Until then it looks like the probability of the univers being the way it is equals 1.
• 

  Elemental

  Get back to me when you solve string theory. Until then it looks like the probability of the univers being the way it is equals 1.

  I just love it when people feel that the "problem" of God can be solved by a mathematical equation. Indeed it is one of the reasons that I feel God is beyond the intellectual mind. All they can see is numbers somehow thinking that if God does not fit within their logic then he must not exist.

  Well, here is a bit of logic for you.

  In order for logic to work, you must have a correct premise for if your premise is flawed then your logic will be off.

  In order to prove or disprove God logically you would need all of the information in order to gain a correct premise.

  No one has all of the information.

  Therefore no one can say that there premise is completely accurate.

  Without a complete premise logic does not work.

  Therefore you cannot prove or disprove God as you do not have all the information to achieve and accurate premise.

  If you say that you know the above...

  Then why do you try and do it anyway?
• 

  jws

  Likewise some atheists enjoy believing in the impossible randomness that they assert created our near infinitely finely tuned universe.

  I don't think you addressed one of my questions. Obviously God, to have created the universe, must be infinitely more complex than the universe. He has intelligence, the ability to design worlds, etc. Are you saying he just randomly came into being?

  C'mon Perry. What are the staggering odds that this all-powerful being exists? Out of nothing? How can you accept such staggering odds?

  Of course the answer would have to be (following your logic) that his God created him. And how did a being greater than God come into being? His God, of course. And so on, and so forth.

  Please address this.