from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?
then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?
So. How do believers explain this slaughter?
My wife would probably explain that it's ok to kill innocents because they have a hope of a resurrection. That's how she explained being fine with people dying because of the transplant ban and the (now repealed) ban on all blood products/fractions.
She still hasn't been able to explain how this is different than shooting someone in the face and it being ok because they might be resurrected.
the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
Screw it. I’ll play.
I’m in a weird mood today and this just irritated me more…
Since you seem to like disclaimers, I’ll give one of my own, when I refer to atheists below, lets all assume I’m talking about atheists that actually know what they’re talking about and aren’t just reciting talking points they’ve heard from a friend that watched a youtube video of Richard dawkins once.
"You must only accept scientific evidence as truth"
You’ve misframed the “argument” (I won’t nit-pick like you probably would if I were to make a similar mistake by calling an assertion an argument. Oops, I guess I kinda did.) made by atheists. The point is not that things are only true if they’ve been proven scientifically, the idea here is that by definition something that makes no testable claims cannot be shown to be true or untrue. Therefore religion is a terrible way to “truth” because it makes no testable claims (or if it does make a testable claim, they often fail). If something makes a testable claim, it can be tested using the scientific method and therefore shown to be true or untrue. If something does not make a testable claim, it by definition cannot be tested in any way (via the scientific method or otherwise) and therefore is impossible to demonstrate as true. Claiming something is “truth” when it cannot be shown to be such is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst – yet this is what most religions do.
In short, your rebuttal was a straw-man.
"The Multiverse Explains the Fine-Tuning (and perhaps the origin) of our Universe"
This isn’t so much an “atheist argument” as it is an idea in cosmology (one, I might add, of many) to explain much of the universe, and it’s explanation of what theists love to describe as “fine-tuning” is more of a side-effect. Your criticism of the origin of the theory is meaningless – how an idea came about does not influence it’s accuracy. Plus you’d need a citation to convince me that the origin of the idea was in an attempt to explain the apparent fine-tuned nature of our universe. So I’ll just ignore that bit. The idea of multiple universes with different physical constants that are balanced differently, some of which contain life and some of which do not, is just one of many explanations for the apparently fine-tuned nature of the universe. Another might be that since life is relatively complex, it requires some fine-tuning and we just got lucky. Or, perhaps there are an infinite variety of life forms that could possibly exist, and which one arises (and subsequently marvels at how perfectly suitable the universe seems to be for life) depends on the physical constants that happen to be in play and therefore always appears to be in an environment that is perfectly suited to it.
The point is that there’s a very valid alternate explanation for why the chemistry of life works in our universe aside from “god did it.” We don’t necessarily know that there are multiple universes out there, or what, but the point is that god is not necessary to explain any of it.
Furthermore people who promote the idea of the multiverse are considerably less likely than a theist to criticize someone for pointing out that there’s insufficient evidence to prove it. It’s also not so much a philosophical idea as it is something that the math says is possible and therefore a good area to explore scientifically. You are correct that the theory doesn’t explain the origin of the multiverse, but it doesn’t attempt to either so you can’t really hold that against it.
"The Moral Values of Modern Atheists are Much Superior to the Moral Values of Yahweh"
There are objective definitions of morality – one I think frames things in a particularly
useful way is Sam Harris’ idea that the moral course should be, if nothing
else, to avoid the scenario of the absolute greatest amount of human
suffering. I think that YHWH could’ve
done a much better job to that end.
Even without an objective definition of morality, you can easily be more moral that the god of the bible even by his own rules. Don’t murder is one of his rules, yet he constantly did it – therefore I (having never murdered) am immediately morally superior in that regard. In fact the only way to explain the bible in a way that makes it seem like any significant portion of YHWH’s actions are moral is to add in some later reward that no one actually knows to exist while simultaneously assuming that “god knows best.” If you want to define morality as being whatever actions are taken by YHWH, then he is by definition the most moral entity. However, I would like to assume that most people see murder, forcing a woman to marry her rapist, and many of the other atrocities committed by YHWH as immoral actions. If we can agree on that, then we should immediately agree that most atheists (and theists alike) are morally superior to the god of the bible.
"Logic, Mathematics, and Morals are the Things We Should Base our Lives On"
Logic and mathematics (leaving morals out since
it doesn’t really fit here, and I’m not sure why you included it) are a good
way to determine what is true, and have been shown to be effective in this
regard countless times. Sure you have to
make some assumptions to make them useful, but the assumption that 1+1=2 is a
little less of a leap than the assumption that because I thought about
something I wanted and it happened there must be some invisible man in the sky
reading my mind and giving me stuff.
"Logic tells us that the only things which exist are those which can be naturally explained by physical processes"
This is the first time I’ve heard anyone make
this statement. The closest I’ve come is
that so far so many of the things that were previously explained by the actions
of one deity or another have been demonstrably proven to be caused by natural
processes that require not divine intervention.
If you observe the trend, it seems reasonable to expect that everything
will eventually be similarly explained.
The god of the gaps is constantly finding himself with smaller and
smaller gaps in which to reside. Sure,
that’s not proof that such a god is not controlling or influencing some phenomena
that we don’t understand, but it’s a good reason not to expect that to be the
case.
"The time-space-matter universe began
to exist with no cause"
Firstly, I don’t think this is the claim, I
think the claim is that we don’t know if there was a cause or what it was.
Secondly, it’s a much more reasonable claim to make that a completely unordered sea of particles and forces that have a net energy of zero sprang into being with no cause than it is to claim that an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, sentient being sprang into existence with no cause.
Thirdly, it can be demonstrated that particles spring into existence and annihilate one another constantly all around us without any order to it. If the universe sprang into being with no cause, the natural cause would likely be a similar mechanism.
"Moral values evolved and developed separately from religious beliefs in early humans, therefore, that is why we are free to reject religion while clinging to moral values"
There’s a fair amount of evidence to support the
idea that a conscience and sense of morality developed prior to religious
belief – animals from primates to dogs to mice demonstrate many similar
tendencies. They are necessary for a
social animal to maintain a society and a society is beneficial to a species
survival (in some cases, at least) thus we evolved to have a certain level of
moral compass because it benefitted our species’ chances of survival. Morals are demonstrably necessary on some
level to maintain a society and while society is not absolutely necessary for
the survival of humans, it’s rather important.
Religion is not necessary for society, and this is demonstrated by many
people living just fine without it.
"Atheism is not a belief system and it makes no claims, therefore you cannot lump atheists together as making the same claims." (But then sometimes the same atheists make this statement:"You are making a 'straw man' argument against atheists. NO atheist ever makes that claim!")
Yup,
the statement that “No atheist ever makes that claim” is hyperbole. What’s your point?
"Religion is evil"
I think this is usually more of a personal
assessment based on observed facts. It’s
not necessarily a reason not to believe in god, but the conclusion one comes to
if when one loses said belief.
Personally I believe that religion was probably somewhat necessary in
the early development of human civilization, it’s just had some rather
regrettable and long-term side effects that I’d really like to be rid of.
"No evidence for any god exists anywhere"
Having fun taking hyperbole and disproving it?
It’s pretty easy, huh? The point
is that there’s roughly equal amounts of evidence that god exists as there is
that there’s a unicorn the size of a hydrogen atom dancing around on my
desk. Yet many people believe one of those
while I don’t expect I’d find many who would believe the other.
"A good God would never allow unnecessary suffering"
You’re falling back on the crutch of using god as
a definition of what is good and/or necessary.
The only explanation you can come up with is that if god allowed some
suffering to happen, then it’s necessary for some reason we’re not privy
to. I think the burden of proof lies on
you that river blindness, childhood leukemia, tsunamis, HIV, etc are necessary since
that is the claim you’re making. It
seems quite unnecessary to me.
"Atheism is the superior mindset to hold, because that is the mindset we were born with"
This is a pretty stupid statement, and one I’ve
never heard made by any atheist that thinks about things prior to saying
them. Now, if the argument is that god
should have made us to naturally know everything about him so that we’d all end
up believing in the same god (vs having countless religions, sects, and
denominations, many of which claim to be the exclusive path to god) then I
think this is a pretty good point – why wouldn’t god give us a fighting chance
to start on the right track?
Anyway, the rest of your post was just stupid nonsense so I’m not going to bother. Actually, by that standard I’m not sure why I bothered with the first bit. Oh well.
i was told that today by a jw...no more to say.
Can water make you gay? Most homosexuals that I know drink it, bathe/shower in it, and some even have enormous pools of it in their back yard!
i have no problem saying atheists and christians are equal.. but some people seem to have the belief that atheists are more likely to be morally good, or more likely to change the world for good, than christians and theists.. but what evidence do you have to support this claim?.
if atheism is what causes people to do great positive things for the world, then why weren't martin luther king, jr., william wilberforce, isaac newton, francis collins, barack obama, mother theresa, abraham lincoln, or john f. kennedy atheists?.
Part of the problem is defining what "morally good" means. Perhaps atheists are more likely to act on thier homosexualality or have multiple (consenting) sexual partners. I would argue that this does not affect whether or not they're "morally good" people, but I'm sure many theists would disagree.
I think in the end, though, it really boils down to the well known quote (too lazy to look up the source...) that goes something like: "there will always be good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion." When you've got a god telling you to do evil things, even an otherwise moral person may give in. When someone is their own highest moral authority, at least good people will always do good things.
if any are willing, share your fact based reasons for viewing faith as dangerous.
viewing faith as dangerous is the reason for almost all of my posts recently.
what seems constant is that theists are too focused on there own little world to realize how and why faith is so damaging to society.
This says it all:
In case it disappears again: http://ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/may26-94-aw.jpg
john hoyle--jws go knocking on strangers doors and try to get inside homes to preach.. wt rep--we are slowly moving away from that kind of preaching work, we do more preaching by using literature carts and personal telephone calls.. .
the above quote is from john hoyle's website:http://insidethewatchtower.com/doctrine/phone-calls-to-bethel-jw-org-email-and-contacts/.
it's interesting, isn't it?
last night's bible highlights was really eyebrow raising!
the brother pointed out at lenght about how david had wept when his son absalom was killed.
but that because absalom was killed while opposing jehovah that means that david was wrong and weak to greive for him.. it was applied to today by saying that if our children are df'd when they die then we should not grieve for them either!.
You should've raised your hand to give a comment and started reading the scripture about the lack of natural affection in the world being a sign of the end then said "wait, I think I'm on the wrong page..." and just given the mic back.
Current new light, as far as I know, is that it's good for Witnesses to privately grieve and to pray for their Disfellowshipped family members as long as they aren't flagrant apostates.
Also, publications say that Jehovah grieves for Disfellowshipped prodigals and He desires they return to Him.
False. There was a recent WT (think it was November 2014) where they essentially likened DF'd ones to people who were killed by Jehovah in the OT and their families were ordered not to grieve their loss. Of course they don't come right out and say it, but it's heavily implied that DF'd ones should not be missed. This is just another part of the E in BITE (and in some ways the T) - they're trying to control the emotions of their followers to keep their control in place.
have you noticed that adding 607 b.c.e roman/gregorian years to 2520 jewish biblical/prophetic years to get 1914 roman/gregorian years c.e is like adding 2 feet + 3 meters= 5 meters?.
the insights volume ii under heading year, mentions that a bible or prophetic year is reckoned to have 360 days.
many other publications indicate that a prophetic year is 360 days long.
assuming you are still sitting there because of circumstances.
why do you still give/don't give talks?i ask this because i have to give talk no.
3: love and obedience bring happinessnwt p. 26 4-6 (5 min.
I vote for going ultra-hardline, but back everything up with references to the WT. If you give a talk that your conscience is OK with, then you would only be serving to soften the face of the cult to anyone there who assumes you're a JW (i.e. everyone). You never know who in the audience might have a problem with something in the cult (in this case, perhaps the call for obedience even if it doesn't make sense) and if you soften the blow you might serve to keep them in the cult longer.
That or spin things such that you're directly condemning the cult in some way without saying it. My favorite talk ever was the one about 8 months ago where I got up there and talked about how we would never want to be a part of any religious organization that had ties to the UN. It was hilarious and sad at the same time to see all the nodding heads.
Anyway, you're never going to reform the cult. Certainly not by giving softened talks that could pass for legitimate christian sermons. I think the only way to help is for anyone who's still in to point out the flaws by making them obvious, either by citing inconvenient scripture or by going ultra-hardline. A talk about obedience seems like a great time to do the latter.
as the bad conduct of the governing body becomes widely known to both judge and jury i expect that will make lawsuits more profitable against them and easier wins against them and more plentiful.. i think probably one of the most damming videos out there on the net is the one where the parents show their loyalty to the wt corporation and shun their own flesh and blood in obedience to it cruel directives.
this video truely shows that the governing body don't give a shit about the children who symbolize their dedication to the corporation or their parents.. such a self serving corporation that uses it members for profits only and offer nothing in return no matter how much how much they claim otherwise.
they can't hide this it is plain as day so no matter how much they claim they are concerned about the youth in the organization their action thunder loudly and can not be hiden under a basket.
In a related topic - My brother (a JW) and his wife (a non-JW) were trying to adopt. They were turned down a number of times because the case worker determined that (a) having a mixed-belief marriage with a high-control religion creates a harmful environment and (b) the dangers of the JW doctrines (e.g. Blood Issue, Shunning) would be a potential harm to the child.
It's always nice to hear when the system actually works as it should.
