Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 98 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  DJW,

  Perhaps I poorly worded a few things.

  But atheists do in fact beleive that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes. You don't worry about if your soda cans in your pantry find purpose do you? That is the kind of purpose I'm talking about.
  
  Like I said The Marquis de Sade found happiness in administering pain to women. If the happiness he experienced was greater than the unhappiness of his victims, then the net gain makes it moral if happiness is the standard.
  

  People can choose their own purpose! That is part of the great uplifting message of atheist naturalism!

  
  Really? So our purpose is subjective? What if someone chooses a purpose that requires them to murder you? That logic doesn't really work does it?
  
  The Christian purpose is to love God and to love your neighbor... even your enemies. I can make sense of that because it is rooted in God's character.

  I cannot make sense of soda cans and broken data codes needing purpose.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  cofty, I don't think I was not equivocating about 'proof'. Instead I was thinking about it in the strict way you mentioned regarding proof, such as in the realm of mathematics and in formal deductive logic, but even those involve starting with premises/assumptions/axioms (even if such are well supported). For all we known, that which we perceive as reality could merely be simulation on some powerful computer. A number of atheistic scientists who fully accept evolution say that is a very real possibility. I consider such ideas, and the similar idea in the science fiction movie called the Matrix, as well as the idea everything I perceive and experience might be dream I am having. There have many times in my life when I though I had woke from a horrible dream only to find I was in another dream (or perhaps a different phase of the same dream), and even to find myself later in a third dream, before I actually became awake.
  

  Though I am highly convinced that all of the current species on Earth have descended from a common ancestral species, it has technically not been proven (in the strict sense of proof in mathematics). For example, perhaps some of the species on Earth descended from an ancestor which never existed on Earth (such as by panspermia from another world, perhaps even by a life designed and created by an unknown extraterrestrial intelligence). The idea is very well illustrated in the science fiction movie called "MIssion to Mars" (and I own a DVD of the movie). It is a very good movie.
  

  Furthermore, as many evolutionist scientists have admitted, there is no way to prove that a god didn't create all of the types of life on Earth by a nonevolutionary process (with them being given the appearance of having descended from the same ancestor). Those scientists have said creationism (depending on how it is worded) is unfalsifiable, since the creationist can say God did it by some mysterious supernatural means.

  The perspectives contribute that what I said in the earlier post about "proof'. I am philosophical. I own books specifically about philosophy.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Cofty,

  Hope you had a good visit with your new grandson. While you've been gone we've been discussing morality from a Christian / Atheist point of view and DJW is highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism. I have pointed out flaws in such arbitrariness.

  I am familiar with some of your views on this topic and would be surprised if you agreed with this view. But, I could be wrong. Do you believe atheists are capable of holding objective morality?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Do trees have no purpose? Tell that to those who eat its fruit or build a house. Does the dog have no purpose, Tell that to the blind man or the police canine unit. Does a day have no purpose and a merely pointless waste of time because of night? Stop foolish self pitying and get on with life.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze, thanks for your followup post. I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is cosmic purpose for us and that no god gave us a purpose.

  Our purpose is subjective in the same sense that our preferences for certain flavors or certain colors is subjective. Regarding what is someone's purpose involves murder, it like the way our USA constitution says we have certain freedoms. The Supreme Court has ruled that the extent of some of those freedoms is limited by whether or not the acting of them by a person hinders the same freedoms of others (for example how one practices their religion or there philosophy). Humans are social beings and we are all dependent (though to varying degrees) upon other humans, unless someone is like a feral child living in the wild with no human language. As a result, especially if we live in cities, we need to get along (at least to some extent) with other humans, and thus murder is not acceptable (at least not me and most other people). There are thus natural limits on what kind of purposes people can get away with giving to themselves and carrying out.
  

  To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite accurate. We are a collection of chemicals in which many of the chemicals are highly animated and grouped in such a manner that their grouping consists of living cells. Likewise the living cells in the brains are grouped in such a way that mind is produced and exists. Likewise working human made electronic computers make decisions, and such is possible because of the way the components of the computer are structured and organized, because of the data inputs to the computer, and because of the electrical power in the operating computer.

  Sea Breeze, my post on page 5 of this topic thread did not was specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism". My comment about a great tenet of atheism was about freedom to choose one's purpose - not about morality being subjective. In this topic thread I have avoided the topic of whether morality is subjective or not, except to the extent of what I mention above in this post.
  
• 

  cofty

  Hi Sea Breeze. I had a fantastic day meeting our new grandson - he is perfect!

  It's late here in UK and I have work tomorrow but I look forward to joining the conversation about godless morality tomorrow evening. Spoiler alert - I tend to disagree with many atheists on this topic too.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  DJW,
  
  There is widespread belief that atheists are untrustworthy and lack an objective moral compass. However, I have seen a great deal of evidence to the contrary in bold comments by Cofty and Simon over the years. I usually don't weigh in on these differences among atheists, until now.

  Other atheists on this board (certainly not all) seem to promote the subjectivity type of morality, which leads to absurdity as I have tried to demonstrate.
  

  I have also seen marked differences between European atheists and American style atheists.

  There are reliable similarities as well as differences between believers and disbelievers in the moral values and principles they endorse. And, that is what I'm trying to explore.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I was in a hurry in writing my prior post, and I made some major typos (including by omission of some words) as a result. The following are important corrections.

  In my prior post where I wrote 'I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is cosmic purpose for us and that no god gave us a purpose' I meant to write "I believe, as stated by a number of atheistic scientists, that there is no cosmic purpose (no purpose made the cosmos [as a whole]) for us and that no god gave us a purpose'.

  Where I wrote "Regarding what is someone's purpose involves murder ..." I meant to write "Regarding what if someone's purpose involves murder ...".

  When I wrote "Likewise working human made electronic computers make decisions ..." for clarity I should have wrote "Likewise working electronic computers (made by humans) make decisions ...".
  

  Where I wrote "... thus murder is not acceptable (at least not me and most other people)" I meant to write "... thus murder is not acceptable (at least not to me and most other people)".
  

  When I wrote 'To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite accurate' I meant to write 'To say that "atheists do in fact beleive[sic] that we are just chemicals and copying mistakes" in quite inaccurate.'

  Where I wrote '... my post on page 5 of this topic thread did not was specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism" ' I should have wrote '... my post on page 5 of this topic thread was not specifically "highlighting moral subjectivity as a great tenet of atheism" ...".
  
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  • either chance or intelligent design can’t be proven.

    Hi Pima,

    I truly appreciate your attepts at acquiring a new worlview after WT. It is unavoidable and is a worthy pursuit.
    
    Your above statement is a truth claimed based on empiricism. Did you prove this by empirical observation? No, you can't see a truth claim. It is abstract. So, how do you know the statement itself is true?

    So, the notion that all truth claims ought to be determined by empirical observation, cannot be proved by emirical observation and therefore should be rejected by its own standard.
    
    Many things can be proved by empirical observation, just not all. So, it cannot be the ultimate standard of truth.
    
    Christians don't have this problem.

    Link
  • Creationists say the facts like the sun is the perfect distance that it’s apparent size to the moon in a total eclipse is exact from our point of view on earth shows proof of intelligent design. Is this what you are talking about with relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory?
  • Is there any such observations with origin of life by chance theory? Has the missing link been found yet?
  • 
    
  • If not then you are by definition agnostic about evolution if you like it or not.
  • 
    
  • once irrefutable proof of chance evolution is presented you are no longer agnostic by true definition.
  • 
    
  • It all comes down to proof. Even if you have faith in something for example Darwin’s theory, if it can’t be proved then agnostic is what you are even if you don’t like it and don’t agree
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  Empirical observation can apply to the origin of life by intelligence more than by evolutionary chance. But still either option of the start of all things can never be proven hence agnosticism is the only true belief system until proof can be presented.

  The more you study and the more you understand the more you realise just how much we humans do not know.

  Cofty and others try to say the missing link has been found or there is now proof of evolution but if it can’t be shown in a short time then bullshit baffles brains emperors new clothes techniques. “You have to be smart to see it” or “you just need to study more”

  if you can’t make your point in a short pithy time then you have no point to make.

  the entire point of being agnostic is that there is no proof.

  if there is proof of evolution then the missing link would have been found by now