Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  towerwatchman

  Brainfloss

  But instead of doing anything immediatly I let over 2000 years go by still human kind is suffering. My followers are abusing children hiding behind my name. Wars are being fought both sides say it is in my name that they fight. Oh yeah before I was Jesus I did the same thing that my followers are doing now using my chosen people. Killing women and children enslaving foriegners making later generations pay for the sins of their ancestors. That's right grandparents won't see their grand kids because their 18 year old son had sex or smoked a cigarette and never repented. I have the power to stop all of this but nobody knows the day or the hour that I will. But I will have faith I will. Oh yeah you better have faith that I will do what I say or in 50 trillion years you won't be one second closer to the end of your punishment then you are right now.

  Your question is a very good question. The answer has to take into account several things, love, free will and omniscience. God created mankind for a love relationship, to give love or to receive love it has to be a free will choice. If God were to create a universe where all the possibilities would lead to salvation, that would be a violation of free will. One cannot grant free will and then violate it. Some abuse this freedom by hurting their fellow man and that is where most of the world’s suffering comes from.

  Theologically, when man told God to stay out of his life God partially honored that request, and creation lost its perfection, and we now don’t live in the world God design for us to live in.

  Since we are using the account in the Bible let’s keep it within the parameters of Christianity. God offers everyone eternal life. This come with some conditions, believe certain things, and live a life accordingly. Very simple. That sounds like a great deal. I live life accordingly for approx. 70 years and my reward is eternal bliss. Now the flip side. If I offend God there a punishment. The Canaanites were not innocent. They were a vile people who practiced some of the lowest form of immorality. (Lev. 18:25). God waited patiently for hundreds of years [Gen 15:16] but the Canaanites did not repent. When judgement fell God like a surgeon amputated the cancer. At this time Israel was unique. Never before or after has there been a theocracy, Israel was ruled and directed by God, and God’s extermination was a direct command from God. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God.

  Most people make God out to be this beast by taking verses in isolation. But let’s look at the whole picture. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31). And in the Gospels Jesus who is God sacrifices Himself taking our place, taking upon Himself the punishment that we justly deserve.

  What one should be asking is, “Why does God allow me to live?” Since God is a holy and just God, He should not allow sin to exist. He is within His right to extinguish any life that is marred by sin. So why are we still here? Maybe, it’s because He is a loving God, who is extending His hand out to you, and waiting patiently for you to answer.
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  What you failed to mention of course is the problems with the handful of references to christ (and even more rarely Jesus).

  We have an unknown, simple preacher, from a desolate corner of the Roman Empire, who at most had a three year ministry. When it comes to antiquity, it is amazing that He is mentioned at all.

  The credibility of an ancient text depends entirely how many supernatural stories it tells.

  Supernatural stories have nothing to do with it. There are other factors that determine an ancient document credible, but as it pertains to copies.

  Caesar written 1 century BC, earliest copy 900 AD, number of copies 10

  If the ten copies agree it is credible.

  Tacitus written 1 century AD, earliest copy 1100 AD, number of copies 20

  If the 20 copies agree it is credible.

  Thucydides written 5 century BC, earliest copy 900AD, number of copies 8

  If the 8 copies agree it is credible

  Demosthenes written 4 century BC, earliest copy 1100 AD, number of copies 200

  If the 200 copies agree it is credible.

  Homer written 9 century BC, 643 copies 95% accurate.

  If the 643 copies agree it is credible

  Now apply that to the NT 5000 copies, 19000 partial manuscripts 86000 quotations from antiquity had to agree. It agreed 99%. For example the historical and archaeological references did or do exist. If you reject it, it is for personal reasons.
• 

  towerwatchman

  Brainfloss

  come on lets not insult one another these very references have been long ago and widely discredited. A veteran debater such as you,I have tracked your work going back nearly 10 years and suspect much more,can do much better than this. I have used these references myself when arguing your side of the matter and I at the time was a babe in the woods. This forum is made up of primarily x jehovahs witnesses who have been shunned by their families,lost their homes, had their lives completely turned upside down by their doubts about religion. We in large part have done the research .

  If you have done the research, there is no doubt that Jesus lived, died and was buried in Jerusalem. Whether He resurrected or not, we have to come to the conclusion based on the information we have, Biblical and extra Biblical.

  The fact that Christianity started in Jerusalem. All with the exception of John died a martyr death. People die for the truth, they do not die for a lie. Ect.

  Your position seems to stem from the wrong the WTS did, but that in turn does not disprove that Jesus lived died and resurrected.
• 

  cofty

  Everybody knows the extra-biblical references to Jesus are bullshit.

  It's embarrassing you would even attempt to go there.
• 

  cofty

  People die for the truth, they do not die for a lie

  Millions have willingly died for delusions.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  People die for the truth, they do not die for a lie

  This is so easily disprovable, it's hard to imagine anyone coming out with such drivel.

  By your logic, ISIS and Palestinian suicide bombers have "the truth".

  Anyway, you serve no purpose here, you're just trolling so feck off.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Praise the lord!
• 

  Finkelstein

  
• 

  digderidoo

  Atheism = self defeating.
  First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, alpha the negative and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.

  Good use of logic. However, as you are aware from your philosophy 101 class, a logical argument has be based upon true premises. Your premise (that atheism means 'negative god' which should be applied today) is false for the following three reasons. (After taking your philosophy 101 class you should be aware that if any one of the following three statements is true then your premise is false, meaning that your conclusion of atheism being self defeating is also false.)

  1) The word atheism (atheos) in Greek means 'without god(s)' or 'without deities', not negative god as you presume. Early Christians in Greece were called atheists by the populous for their lack of belief in many gods. So you see the early literal meaning of the word is neither 'negative god', nor 'affirms the negative in the absolute'.

  2) Basing a modern linguistic meaning on the 500 BC Greek use of a word is preposterous, as atheism has its roots in 600 BC India.

  3) To get to where we are today we have had to pass through classical antiquity and the enlightenment. The meaning of words change in time, all of your language has - you would not base the meaning of all of your words used today on what they meant 2,500 years ago, that would be absurd.

  On this point, your philosophy 101 class may have taught you something about Socrates. Please read Plato's dialogue of Cratylus (your philosophy 101 teacher may or may not be aware of it, ask him/her).
  

  Socrates is brought in to help with an answer to an argument between Heraclitus and Cratylus. The former argued that names of words are posited by custom and convention, whereas Cratylus (like you) argues that names of words have some sort of natural meaning attached to them. After listening to both arguments Socrates describes the creation of words as being like an artist who expresses the essence of his subject in the painting. Over time the meaning of the names of words change, like the creation of the picture from the first use of the artists brush. He states, "names have been so twisted in all manner of ways, that I should not be surprised if the old language when compared with that now in use would appear to us to be a barbarous tongue."

  Finally, Socrates concludes that the study of language to gauge a useful meaning is philosophically inferior to the study of the things themselves.

  Take Socrates advice - to gauge a philosophical understanding of a topic study its things, not its words.

  I rather suspect that the use of literal Greek for gauging some sort of modern day meaning is influenced by your JW days. Get out of the box and move on, there is big wide world out there.
• 

  Caedes

  Supernatural stories have nothing to do with it. There are other factors that determine an ancient document credible, but as it pertains to copies.

  So by that logic Hogwarts is real after all it doesn't matter what supernatural claims are made it's all down to the number of copies and that JK Rowling has sold a LOT of books.