by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
To. Finkelstein
The only omniscience thing is natural law holding to intellectual honesty, until proven otherwise.
Omniscience: the state of knowing everything.
Natural Law: A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
How does natural law possess omniscience?
Theists position themselves with intellectual dishonesty when they say that there is positively a supernatural being.
Its really the easiest answer that doesn't involve critical investigation upon psychical evidence.
God the all powerful omniscient being did it all and that being has actually been in contact with humanity overtime.
Ancient mythology offers men power and easily obtainable answer(s) to difficult complicated questions relating to are own existence and that of the universe and other things like salvation, redemption from sins and some times even money., where on the other hand science and its acquired knowledge and information doesn't offer them anything at all.
Therefore I think religion is going to be with us for a lot longer to come....... unfortunately.
To cofty
TWM - When you get a minute don't forget to reply to my refutation of your OP...
I suggest you slow down a lot and reflect on the answers you are given. There are a lot of people here who have far more knowledge of these issues than you clearly have. With a bit of humility you could learn a lot. Your wordy responses invariably miss the point you pretend to be replying to. You should also reply to Berengaria's post above. She shows irrefutably that your OP got off to a bad start. Atheism means "without god".
The amount of private messages and their content [that I am receiving] disagree with you. You seem to be the only one that cannot connect the dots. Suggest you read the responses again or maybe several times.
Good luck.
Natural Law: A body of unchanging moral principles.
Natural law has nothing to do with morals principles, it does have to do only with the psychical world and its causative effects and actions, if anything its on constant progression of changing principles.
"Even if a grant you that ‘a’ means ‘without’ we have not come to the conclusion that Atheism means ‘without belief in God’. What is negated in the word is ‘God’ not ‘belief’. In the etymology of the word there is no concept of belief. We can go as to meaning ‘a universe without God’ which is another way of saying ‘God does not exist’ , affirming the non existence of God"
No, it's pretty simple. Without god. Not having god. That's all atheism is. You are apparently trying to turn it into a belief that there is no god. A believer will say "I believe there is an invisible table in the middle of that room." A nonbeliever will simply say it's an empty room. They would not say "I absolutely do not believe there is a table in this room".
To: cofty
Oh dear I didn't realise your were an evolution denier as well! From your first venture into biology it is clear you have never read a single book on evolution or abiogenesis in your entire life.
There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. I believe the finch’s beaks change over time. I do not believe a whale evolved from a mammal. I don’t like to discuss comparative anatomy, I prefer genetics.
What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.
TWM - I will discuss evolution with you any time but stay on topic in this thread.
Here is a link to 38 threads I have written on evolution. Take your pick...
By the way tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read.
I predict the answer is none and you will ignore the question.
We can go as to meaning ‘a universe without God’ which is another way of saying ‘God does not exist’ , affirming the non existence of God.
You're still projecting the modern English noun usages (i.e. With the endings "ist" and "ism") backwards upon the Greek adjective.
"It is only about a decade after Socrates' death, in Plato (ca. 429 - 347 B.C.) that we start to find the Greek word atheos, which originally was used in the meaning, "godless, without gods, godforsaken," denoting intellectuals who denied the gods of the city or any form of deity." -Martin, Michael The Cambridge Companion to Atheism p. 19
"Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed." -Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (Emphasis mine)
The amount of private messages and their content [that I am receiving] disagree with you.
Yes there are a cadre of theists who love it when some mug joins and spouts all the vacuous nonsense they wish they had the courage to post. You will get lots of PMs and plenty warnings about me and others. Remember those same theists tried out all your fallacies already and had it explained to them why it was wrong.
Don't let it go to your head. Despite what they tell you, you haven't said anything interesting yet.
You are parroting lots of Wm L Craig bullshit and not engaging in genuine conversation with anybody. If you ever slow down and engage in genuine dialogue you will realise how much you have to learn.
To Cofty
TWM - Why are you still ignoring the need to carefully define the god you are arguing for? You ignore all the hard questions don't you?
Why, so you can change the subject? Atheism should be able to survive the same scrutiny that Theism has. As of now I am arguing for a supernatural intelligent being.
A = negative, denial Nope. You pulled that out of your imagination. Atheist means without god.
Even if a grant you that ‘a’ means ‘without’ we have not come to the conclusion that Atheism means ‘without belief in God’. What is negated in the word is ‘God’ not ‘belief’. In the etymology of the word there is no concept of belief. We can go as to meaning ‘a universe without God’ which is another way of saying ‘God does not exist’.
Christians make a lot of specific claims about god. It is possible to show that these claims cannot be reconciled with each other or with reality. Therefore we can say with certainty that the god of Jesus does not exist.
The Atheist reject all forms of deity. Any worldview that espouses deity that does not agree among itself, does not equate to the nonexistence of deity but the nonexistence of uniformity. If there is any question it is settled internally.
If you retreat into a very vague form of deism - a common trick of christian apologists - then of course your very modest claims can never be refuted.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Notice the duplicity and hypocrisy. You keep insisting on discussing Theism vs Atheism which I do not, and then bring this up.
To illustrate - If I said unicorns exist, an a-unicornist could never prove me wrong without perfect knowledge of all the beings - visible and invisible - in the universe. If however I say that a large pink, visible, and noisy unicorn lives in my bathroom then the a-unicornist could prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.
All that can be proven is that there are no unicorns in your bathroom.
