You might get lucky and live for 90 or 100 years, but what the hell does one person know in 100 years? Knowledge from the beginning of time, encompassing all things seen and unseen?
Like I said............................
NightOwl
A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian
by cofty 188 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
EdenOne
Cofty and his anti-religion, anti-faith, pro-rationalism cruzade carries on ... Sometimes I wonder just how much have you really changed in your core being, from a dogmatic JW to a charismatic born-again, to a zealot atheist scientific orthodox; because the personality trait remains the same. Let's leave out of the equation who you are, since I accept that you're a respectable, intelligent and honored man. That's beside the point.
However, when contemporary scientific orthodox people such as yourself presume they have achieved the ranks of "unquestionable Truth" about the cosmos, you prove yourself to be absolutely no better than the religious orthodoxy that you so ardently advocate against. There's a blatant hipocrisy when you claim that you're not dogmatic, since what you accept as scientific fact generally accepted as valid among the scientific circles can indeed change if new evidence makes a compelling case for a change of interpretation of the reality, but, at the same time, you act as if the present knowledge is a sacred cow that cannot be questioned or challenged by others outside the "priestly" class of the "anointed" scientists, pseudo-scientists and lovers of science such as yourself.
Because the root of the problem lies in a snobbish attitude towards those who don't share your supposed rationalistic enlightenment. In many regards, you still live in the 18th century, in the Age of Enlightenment. I suspect that you would easily become an enlightened absolutist, since you do not tolerate the presence of people who hold faith without giving in to the irresistable call for atheist proselitism. And the urge to simply attempt to crush alternative views of the cosmos with your "shock and awe" argumentative tactics. It gets tiresome after a while to put up with it. Let the believers be believers, Cofty.
You (and others too) often attempt to hold religious leaders - and by extension, those who accept and share into similar beliefs - accountable for actions you judge as 'irrational'. I wonder what kind of punishment would you find adequate to prescribe to believers who commit the thought crime of having a non-rationalistic view of the world. Death, perhaps? A guetto, maybe? How about a concentration camp for believers? Would that suit you to satisfaction? But, in due honesty, can you claim that science hasn't acted irrationally as well?
If we could compile every claim published in respectable science publications since peer review became norm, and see see how many formulations once accepted as "truths" have been revised, amended, and even discarded as new evidence or measurements or social norms have emerged, what would a sensible person conclude? How foolish some accepted "facts" of 150 years ago appear to us today? How foolish will today's scientific zealots such as yourself appear some 200 years from now? I wonder if you're willing to accept that your descendants may well hold you accountable for your errors and your dogmatic vision of the world. If they're smart, they will say about you, what you say about religious discourse of people today: "The very definition of hubris". Your dogmatism will undoubtly be deemed foolish. Perhaps, if they're better than you, they'll forgive your ignorance and arrogance.
Eden
-
cofty
Wow EdenOne that is one crazy ejaculation of ill-informed rhetoric.
Most of it isn't worth a response but let's look at one of your more insightful offerings.
the personality trait remains the same
Yes I'm proud to say it does.
I was raised as a JW and the information I had access to was severely controlled. On the basis of the evidence I was permitted, I was convinced it was the "truth" and I lived as if it was. I could not understand JWs who lived as if they didn't really believe it. I still can't.
When I got angry with the GB over the '95 debacle I gave myself permission to investigate further and face up to niggling doubts. Using only the bible and WT publications I discovered the Watchtower were wrong and so I left. I can't do hypocrisy. Even though I lost all my family and friends I followed the evidence.
Not surprisingly I continued to assume that the basics of my beliefs were true. I still believed in god and the bible as his word. I became a christian.
Later - following some dramatic incidents - I began to investigate some more fundamental questions. I studied theodicy extensively and concluded that all attempts to defend god were vacuous. I developed my interest in science and studied it with a passion. I also began to read writings by intelligent people who opposed christianity and exposed myself to all the evidence. In time I concuded that when I left the Watchtower I had not actually examined my faith as radically as I thought I had.
I followed the evidence and eventually realised that I was effectively an atheist.
So yes my personality that led me from sincere JW, through passionate evangleical christian to atheist is the same. A brutally honest need to expose myself to things that challenge my beliefs and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
So what about your personality Eden. How does it account for your journey from one supersitious worldview to a slightly different superstitious one?
-
EdenOne
Let it be clear that I respect your journey into where you are today. Naturally I do not know all the circumstances involved, and I appreciate that you took the time to share them. You followed what appealed to your persona and came to accept that religion is a lie and you replaced it with science in your system. I can respect that; it works for you personally and if that's how the cosmos makes sense to you, who am I to argue against it? We agree that nowadays science does make mankind advance in awe-inducing ways that religion couldn't do, simply because that wasn't the role that religion was supposed to play. However, you have to also agree that historically, religion did more for mankind's ethics and values than science ever did or ever could care to do - again, because that's not the role of science.
My issue is with the arrogance that usually surfaces when someone who presumes to possess the "truth" about anything - be it the scientific "truth" or the religious "truth". In your case, the "scientific truth". But do not mistaken me, I have recently developed the same aversion about those who exhibit the same kind of arrogance for thinking they have "the truth" - and this includes many Jehovah's Witnesses, some of them very close to me. Lately I've neared getting in trouble with close JW family because I just can't take dogmatic statements from the platform anymore. They make me angry, because, if there's something I've learned from being in this forum with you, Cofty, is to ask myself: "How would a visitor who's not mentally inclined to nod to this drivel would think of us if he were to listen to this?".
You asked me about my own journey. I may not have the same ballsy attitude that you had in leaving the WTS when I started to see it for what it really is - just another Christian church, filled with a false sense of its own superiority above everyone else. I don't find it an hypocrisy to stay, at least for the time being. I still believe in the fundamentals, and I have much to lose in terms of family and friends, if I make the wrong moves right now. In many ways, my business life has taught me to not take hasty decisions, and think ahead, and let some time roll. I prioritize my family, my work and my love for music. When my work allows me some time, then I like to focus on examin what my beliefs are. This is where this forum comes very handy - I learn a lot from what I read here, even when I don't participate. Where will it take me, I don't know, time will tell. I don't have a plan.
As for my previous post, I apologize if I was overly harsh on your persona.
Eden
-
cofty
you have to also agree that historically, religion did more for mankind's ethics and values than science ever did or ever could care to do
No that is the last thing I would I agree to. Religion is not a force for good.
be it the scientific "truth" or the religious "truth"
"Religious truth" is an oxymoron. Science is a method for discovering reality. It is the only one we have.
Each one of us must make the decisions that are right for us. Nobody else can make those judgement calls about the cost and benefit of leaving the cult.
I apologize if I was overly harsh on your persona
I don't have a persona, I have an authentic personality. Don't mistake confidence for arrogance.
-
EdenOne
Religion is not a force for good.
No? Isn't religious belief at the origin of altruistic love, compassion, charity? You must be kidding me.
"Religious truth" is an oxymoron.
It's as much an oxymoron as the expression "scientific truth", then. Just because you personally don't accept the existence of God, doesn't mean reallity ends up agreeing with you - or me, for that matter. God may well end up being something very different than what we presume to be. Yet, there will still be a "truth" about God, and someday we will know it. How close we are at this point to that point is perhaps the question.
Don't confuse confidence for arrogance.
Nah, it's really arrogance, Cofty. You better embrace that notion. You're both.
Eden
-
cofty
Isn't religious belief at the origin of altruistic love, compassion, charity?
What religion do you have in mind? Homo sapiens have been displaying altruism and compassion for over 100 000 years
It's as much an oxymoron as the expression "scientific truth", then
Anybody who imagines that religion has as much claim on reality as science is either ignorant, biased or both.
When did religion last say something useful or even interesting? See if you can answer without more personal remarks.
-
EdenOne
Homo Sapiens practiced religion certainly before Adam and Eve were created. (No, I don't believe that Abel and Cain invented the altar and the sacrifices on it. They observed others doing it.). However, I challenge you to come up with evidence that compassion, charity and altruism were practised as ethical values by the Homo Sapiens before a religious system, however incipient, was developed. And what I mean is a display of such qualities in a more significant way than animals did - like a mother caring for her child or the father protecting his family. Funeral rites since early in mankind's pre-history denote a concern with religious beliefs very early in the timeline of mankind.
Anybody who imagines that religion has as much claim on reality as science is either ignorant, biased or both.
I didn't say that. However it has claim on certain aspects of reality that science doesn't have a concern for.
There, I commented on your comments without furhter "personal remarks". Pitty you can't follow your own advice.
Oh, and btw - since "Cofty" isn't your real name, I can freely use the term "persona". See Wiki: "[In psychology] persona is also the mask or appearance one presents to the world".
Eden
-
cofty
like a mother caring for her child or the father protecting his family
Chimps do this - atheist chimps. So do birds and countless other species of animals.
Pitty you can't follow your own advice
I never make personal remarks. Don't judge me by your standards.
-
bohm
Eden: "However, I challenge you to come up with evidence that compassion, charity and altruism were practised by the Homo Sapiens before a religious system"
Thats not a rational argument. By the same token, you can "proove" fire is the cause of compassion. How? find any proof humans practiced compassion before the invention of fire...