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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
according to them you are not gay if you are attracted to the same sex, it's just hormones and you might grow out of it.. i wonder what hormones in particular they are talking about and if they feel that a female who goes through menopause is in danger of turning gay or even if taking hormones will adjust your thinking?.
this is from the wt org website.
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/teenagers/ask/pressure-to-be-gay/.
i was at a concert last night and the presence and stature of the piano struck me.
and i thought: if the piano wasn't invented when it was, would it have been invented by someone else instead?
or if there was a world the same as our, except with a different history, would it have pianos now too or would it be modern world, similar in many respects, only without pianos?
It's an interesting question. But there's really only a couple of types of instruments:
Brass
Strings
Percussion
Woodwind
However, the harpsichord and the piano are unique in that they're a stringed instrument that is not plucked or bowed. Instead, they're struck with a hammer. I feel the only "new" instrument over the past few hundred years has been the computer. You can take a sound sampling from anything - or create one entirely - and make whatever musical note you want with it.
I agree that the piano was inevitable. Though I can't help but wonder what musical devices have yet to be discovered.
i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.
to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.
i realized, atheists believe these things too!.
Their belief that physical resurrection involves the reassembly of atoms in a particular configuration to recreate the person or soul.
-SBF
I've never heard this one. Though I have heard the complete opposite - that we will get new bodies. Can you cite a source please?
Their rejection of an omnipresent God.
This is not true. JWs believe God sees everything and can interact anywhere at anytime. I think some religions might take it one step further - in that God is "in" everything - but lacking that position is not a rejection of omnipresence.
Their rejection of modern day miracles and divine revelation.
Firstly, I'm not sure why it matters if they believe this is happening "modern day" or not. Believing in only ancient miracles and divine revelation doesn't make them materialists. But either way, JWs do believe that God actively intervenes in their lives. They regularly pray to have God to change their circumstances. They believe their preaching work is guided by the angels. And they believe that every single quick build is a miracle too (I'm not exaggerating here).
Not to mention that JWs are some of the most superstitious people I have ever met. They believe that watching scary movies can let demons into their house and that coming to THIS WEBSITE will let Satan into their minds.
I agree with you that JWs are very different from mainline Christianity. And that the meetings are very cold, corporate, and stunt emotional and intellectual growth. But that doesn't mean they are materialists.
I have the feeling you think that's what "materialism" is. Something heartless and computer like. But that's not the case at all. I would encourage you to check out my thread on this topic: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/27300001/spirituality-science
P.S. I'm a materialist as far as I believe there is an objective reality and I believe there are truths to be learned about that reality. But I don't claim "material is all there is" - only that material is all we're currently justified in believing.
i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.
to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.
i realized, atheists believe these things too!.
JWs are materialists
-SBF
Not remotely. JWs believe in:
1.) Spectral Evidence. They believe that information can be relayed through divine interpretation and personal revelation (e.g. Moses, Daniel, Paul, and the Governing Body).
2.) Supernatural Causation. They believe that the universe was created by a supreme being and they also believe that being uses supernatural powers to influence events within the universe (i.e. the holy spirit).
3.) Supernatural Realm. They believe that both Heaven and Tartarus are places that exist outside of the universe and are not bound to the physical laws of our universe.
4.) Supernatural Beings. They believe in the existence of Angels, Archangels, Demons, the Devil, and an all powerful God.
JWs are the complete opposite of materialists. Where physical evidence conflicts with their beliefs (e.g. evolution) they choose their beliefs over the evidence. And people who are materialists do not believe in spectral evidence, supernatural causation, a supernatural realm, or in supernatural beings.
Slimboyfat is a troll. He will say anything he thinks will get atheists/agnostics/non-believers riled up. He's not remotely interested if his claims are true or not.
