Posts by Coded Logic

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

Or it could be an accurate description of a God beyond existence as we understand it.

"Beyond existence" is not something that has been established as being a real thing. And, until such a time as it is shown to be possible that something can exist "beyond existence" - there's no good reason to believe any such claims. Once again, I could just as easily put flying unicorns in the category of "beyond existence". But it still wouldn't mean anyone was justified in believing they're actually real.

You also don't seem to understand that negative theology is a thought experiment. It's not an actual way of describing things. Because we can only explain things in relation to other things. If you don't know what a ship is I might say it's a large boat. If you don't know what a boat is then I would have to explain it in reference to a vessel that floats on water, etc - until I get to something you have experience with or you already understand and then I can explain a ship in reference to that. But we can't explain things solely on what it isn't. If I say there I have a device that's not a computer and it's not alive and it doesn't have any minerals in it - could you then understand what that device is?

"Beyond existence" is just an Ad Hoc response you made up to try and rescue a failed hypothesis. There's a huge difference between following the evidence where it leads vs making up new terms so you can try and lead the evidence where you want it to go.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

If God fails to be a being about whom it makes sense to make empirical statements then what?

Then we're not justified in believing in it.

It doesn't make sense to make empirical statements about things which don't exist - like flying unicorns - because there are no empirical statements that can be made.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

"God" is a manmade construct. Either it is an accurate description of some existent being or it is not.

If you're asking "could there be something out there of which we could not comprehend and cannot be described in anyway" then you're NOT talking about God. You're talking about something very much different.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

But what about a God beyond being? Not in the category of beings whose existence can be determined one way or another.
-SBF

How do we tell the difference between beings whose existence cannot be determined from beings that don't exist at all?

I could just as well put unicorns, bigfoot, or pyramid building aliens in the category of 'beings whose existence cannot be determined'. Because things for which there is no evidence and things which don't exist are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

I am open to their existence pending evidence. But in the meantime the only rational position is disbelief. Why do people have such a hard time with this?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

I agree Crofty. "Atheist" isn't really a label I use to identify myself. Because I prefer to use labels that stand for what I do believe. Not what I don't believe.

It's all been said before, but I think it bears repeating. Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview. It has no dogma, no tenants, no leader and no holy books. It's a single position on a single issue.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

I think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim. For example, I'm agnostic about the existence of a historical Jesus. I think a reasonable case can be made that Jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades. But I also I think Dr. Carrier makes a great argument that Jesus could have started out as a celestial deity who was then euhemerized by the early Christians (much like Romulus was by the Romans). Having no way to rule out either of these plausible positions - I'm agnostic.

But when you have no good evidence for a proposition I think "atheism" is the most reasonable position. For example, I'm not "agnostic" about the existence of flying unicorns. I believe they don't exist. As I believe bigfoot doesn't exist. As I believe that aliens had no helping hand in building the pyramids.

Of course I can't prove a negative. I can't "prove" flying unicorns don't exist, or that bigfoot doesn't exist, or that aliens didn't help build the pyramids. But it's not necessary for me to disprove their existence to be rationally justified in my disbelief. Because the default position when addressing any claim is disbelief. It takes some prior experience or knowledge or new evidence to move us from disbelief to belief.

The absolute lowest bar for agnosticism is having some way of establishing a claim is possible - either through president or something of parallel comparison. For a God or Gods, it has not been established it's possible that they can exist. Much less plausible that they do exist. Thus atheism.

Or, to put all this into one pithy little soundbite; having no good reason to believe something is at least one good reason not to believe it.

16

Good NYT article on gravitational waves discovery

by done4good in

jw
friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=homepage&clicksource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&wt.nav=top-news&_r=0.

probably the biggest find since the higgs.. d4g.

Coded Logic

And not just a new discovery either! Astrophysicist will now have a new tool in which they can observe the universe. One of the most interesting aspects is it will allow us to observe black holes up close and personal in a way we never could before.

It's like inventing the telescope or radio astronomy. It's really going to expand the kind of information we can gather.

40

Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission

by Coded Logic in

since the watchtowers' lawyers have (a) failed to make any recommendations to the arc that would bring the watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (b) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (c) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (d) have completely dismissed all the arcs' findings - what's the royal commission's next course of action?.

i see two possibilities:.

) negotiate a settlement with the watchtower.

Coded Logic

Smiddy; Freddo; Shepherdless; Listener; Talesin,

Thanks for clarifying the ARCs role as an advisory group. I wonder how many lawsuits we'll see against the Watchtower in the next four to five years? Sounds like a PR nightmare coming their way.

40

Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission

by Coded Logic in

since the watchtowers' lawyers have (a) failed to make any recommendations to the arc that would bring the watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (b) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (c) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (d) have completely dismissed all the arcs' findings - what's the royal commission's next course of action?.

i see two possibilities:.

) negotiate a settlement with the watchtower.

Coded Logic

TGND,

I think your timeframe is right. We wont see the legal repercussions from the ARC for at least a year or two. But it WILL come.

Zeb,

I hadn't really considered the idea that the Watchtower might close their branch in Australia. That'd be pretty damning. If they cut their loses there could we see the same thing happen with the investigations in the UK and Canada with those branches closing too? That's a nice thought.

Mephis,

I think what you said is perhaps the best case scenario. It would be nice if the courts were given some real teeth by legislature to deal with the Watchtowers disgusting policies.

SD,

In all fairness, I don't think the commission is going to allow themselves to be strung along. They were so on top of the hearings and so aware of the cheap tactics and double talk the Watchtower uses it was amazing. No doubt they'll use the same discretion when dealing with the Witnesses in the future.

40

Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission

by Coded Logic in

since the watchtowers' lawyers have (a) failed to make any recommendations to the arc that would bring the watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (b) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (c) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (d) have completely dismissed all the arcs' findings - what's the royal commission's next course of action?.

i see two possibilities:.

) negotiate a settlement with the watchtower.

Coded Logic

Since the Watchtowers' lawyers have (A) failed to make any recommendations to the ARC that would bring the Watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (B) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (C) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (D) have completely dismissed all the ARCs' findings - what's the Royal Commission's next course of action?

I see two possibilities:

1.) Negotiate a settlement with the Watchtower

2.) File a lawsuit in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against the Watchtower

.

I find the first option unlikely since Justice Peter McClellan specifically wanted the Watchtower to submit ideas to the Court on how the Jehovah's Witnesses could best come up to date with Best Practices and Procedures and said he was not interested in having the Court assign changes to the Watchtower. McClellan said that the Court would then review the proposed changes and see if they met the Court's standards. I think this was a very pragmatic approach by the Justice as it forced the Watchtower to admit they could be doing more and, simultaneously, avoided a drawn out scenario in which the Court would make recommendations and then the Watchtower would shoot them down one by one claiming they were not practical to implement or were not in keeping with their religious beliefs.

Another reason I feel negotiating a settlement with the Watchtower is unlikely is because the Watchtower has rejected almost every single finding of the ARC. Until such a time as the Watchtower can admit they have a problem it would be nearly impossible to broker any real change within the Society or get them to pay out millions of dollars to victims in a redress scheme.

.

And this brings us to the second option - a Federal Lawsuit. I find it impossible to believe the ARC is just going to sit on its hands as the Watchtower does nothing to change. I find a lawsuit quite likely at this point because the Commission has been collecting evidence and testimony from hundreds of JWs who have been abused in Australia. It seems to me they're taking the necessary time to put together a massive federal case.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/458960001/update-on-royal-commission-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-hears-4000th-testimony

Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts on what might happen. I'm really interested what you guys think might happen with the ARC? And if this does become a federal case - what will it do to the R&F?