Whats the matter WTK? don't feel you can answer the points I made or have you not found the article you want to cut and paste yet?
Posts by Caedes
-
32Does Free Will Allow Evil?
by writetoknow inby dr. mark eastman.
" a proper understanding of this issue not only provides great insight into the nature of god, it ties together a comprehensive understanding to some of life's ultimate questions: the answers to my origin, meaning, morality and destiny!.
the christian worldview is an impractical, even phony, view of the cosmos because it embraces a god who is either incapable of stopping evil and suffering, and he is therefore not omnipotent, or is unwilling to do so and therefore a devil!.
-
-
-
41
A Theory of Nothingness
by Sad emo inlight - we can't see it or touch it; we can't hear it, taste it or smell it.
parts of light appear as different colours - all electomagnetic forces yet still the colour is mere perception, dependent on whether the light rays are absorbed or reflected by the object they fall upon.
white may indeed be black and black be white - perceptions!
-
-
Caedes
Ahh I think I see what Twitch was alluding to, The gravitational force that we (as people) exert on the earth is proportional to our mass in exactly the same way that the gravitational force exerted by the earth is proportional to it's mass. I'm not sure it's helpful to refer to the gravitational force we exert as gravity though, at least not in a public forum.
I am still of the opinion that cultswatter's comment is technically correct from the viewpoint of a person on earth referring to their own mass and the gravitational pull of the earth.
-
34
How do people continue to buy into the Watchtower???
by integ infolks,.
with all the information out there, available for all to see; exposing the lies,hypocrisy, and outright ridiculousness (is that a word?..if not it should be) of this whole witness religion, how in the world are people still buying into this?.
is it because i don't have jehovah's spirit anymore?
-
-
Caedes
I think it is because that for a lot of those who are still in there is no reason to disturb what can be a happy home life. I have a brother in law who is intelligent, he's got a nice house, good job, nice kids and he's an elder. Even if he privately has doubts he has no reason to disrupt his home and family because he enjoys being a witness. He is well liked in his congregation, so he has a community of people around that know and respect him. Why would he want to give that up?
We (on this site) may know that the jw religion is a sham (he may know it himself for all I know) but that doesn't mean that that the majority of witnesses dont get something positive out of being one. Having the information accessable is not the same as wanting to know.
Perhaps some of us (myself included) have had negative experiences, but that doesn't really undermine the positive experiences of the majority of ordinary witnesses. Whilst i have no time for the lies and manipulation of the leadership of the witnesses, I don't feel the need to disbelieve that ordinary witnesses enjoy the life they have.
-
41
A Theory of Nothingness
by Sad emo inlight - we can't see it or touch it; we can't hear it, taste it or smell it.
parts of light appear as different colours - all electomagnetic forces yet still the colour is mere perception, dependent on whether the light rays are absorbed or reflected by the object they fall upon.
white may indeed be black and black be white - perceptions!
-
-
Caedes
Umm, not exactly. They're not mutually exclusive and are directly proportional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Perhaps you could explain this further, I can't see how mass is proportional to gravity. Your mass is the same if you are standing on earth or on the moon. Or are you talking about equivalence? In which case cultswatter's comment is still entirely correct for all practical purposes.
-
32
Does Free Will Allow Evil?
by writetoknow inby dr. mark eastman.
" a proper understanding of this issue not only provides great insight into the nature of god, it ties together a comprehensive understanding to some of life's ultimate questions: the answers to my origin, meaning, morality and destiny!.
the christian worldview is an impractical, even phony, view of the cosmos because it embraces a god who is either incapable of stopping evil and suffering, and he is therefore not omnipotent, or is unwilling to do so and therefore a devil!.
-
-
Caedes
No actual I don't as I am certain you don't! But that is point - as your question is not sincere most people on the forum have their mind-set and they only have one purpose. And that is to prove their point!
So what is your point?
For the hard of understanding, my point is that I answered your original c&p job (quite sincerely), you couldn't be bothered to reply. I was trying to get out of you how you can defend such an indefensible position, but so far your only action on this thread is to c&p some article and then make snide comments to someone who took the time to respond to you. I have made my point, what is yours? In your own words, if that is not utterly beyond you.
-
11
WHOA, MORE evidence for evolution? Whale 'missing link' discovered.
by serotonin_wraith inexamples like this just keep on piling up.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7150627.stm?lsm.
.
-
-
Caedes
Jaguarbass,
The everyday usage of the word theory does not mean the same thing as the scientific use of the word. Whilst you and I might declare we have a theory about something we don't in the scientific sense of the word.
You are correct in that we are wasting our time here, because until the creationists can prove what they are saying empirically, science will carry on with the 'fact' of evolution. I use the word fact in brackets because there are too many creationists who refuse to understand the difference between a proven scientific 'theory' with a hundred years of empirical evidence and a hundred years of the finest minds trying to prove it wrong and something that they have spent 30 seconds thinking about.
You do not have a theory in the scientific sense of the word, you have a hypothesis, an idea, nothing more. Get some empirical evidence, do some science, get your hypothesis peer reviewed and published and then come back and tell me you have a 'theory' Until then, the scientific 'theory' is better than yours because it's based on empirical evidence not guesswork and hearsay and opinion.
I design engineering control systems for a living, If you where on a boat in the middle of the Pacific relying on one of my designs to get you home, would you prefer it if I base my designs on empirical evidence or on opinion. For example, I specified a seal on a product whose performance was listed as being higher than another seal we have used succesfully in the past. When I actually tested the new seal it failed after 100 hours. That is what makes science, being willing to actually prove your opinion with hard evidence.
As for living long enough to know conclusively one way or another, you are wrong. Darwin has been proved right, evolution is eminently falsifiable but has no one has managed it yet.
-
59
NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)
by hooberus ini once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
-
-
Caedes
apl
-
67
Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?
by writetoknow inintroduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
-
-
Caedes
Hate speech as I understand it is speech advocating violence etc towards someone. As an atheist I would not be in favour of anyone using hate speech towards theists (of any flavour).
I have not noticed hate speech towards christians or theists on this site or indeed anywhere. So what is your point, wtk?
Do you condemn the actions of the christian that killed a neighbour because he was an atheist? Do you condemn the christians that killed that doctor because he worked at an abortion clinic?
So what about hate speech towards atheists? How about Bush senior's comments that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens? Whilst it may not be hate speech it runs very close to the wind for a presidential statement. It's certainly a lot closer than any comments from atheists on this site.
-
21
Comments on Science v Creationism
by Mr Ben inthis is the place to add your comments and bttt's for my thread at:.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148600/1.ashx.
thanks..
-
-
Caedes
Chappy,
I would say the point is that god (despite the fact that no-one can offer a generally accepted definition of what that word means) can never be proven empirically.
As humans we quite often accept everyday things at face value, extraordinary claims require evidence. Whilst for example I would accept it if you claimed that you had a large motorbike in your garage, I would be much more skeptical if you claimed to have a large pink dragon called Doris.
You are correct there are two choices, you either believe that the universe is entirely natural or you believe that it is supernatural. Neither choice is impossible since I cannot prove that god doesn't exist I cannot entirely rule out the possibility that I am wrong, and conversely the same is true for you.
Does matter come from nothing?, science doesn't know what came 'before' the big bang. Perhaps one day we will know, all I know is that we will be constantly striving to find out in the meantime.
Why do I choose the naturalistic explanation? Because I accept that the origins of the universe are broadly as science have explained them, there is empirical proof for the big bang. If I were to accept that god did it that would mean I would have to tack on a belief in a supernatural intelligence that preceded and caused that momentous event and that this god has either always existed or popped into existence from nothing. The latter does not seem to be the most parsimonious answer. For me the latter is by far a greater leap than the naturalistic one.
I reject all gods even the nice ones. At least until I can see some empirical evidence.
All I can tell you is to THINK and not just accept every "scientific" non-explination for existance and conciousness.
All I can tell you is to carry on thinking and if having a belief helps you then fair play to you. I don't agree that any serious science is a non-explanation, it might be difficult and it might not answer all our questions but it is the best and brightest tool we have to understand the world around us.
-
22
Science v Creationism
by Mr Ben inscience v creationism.
i keep popping back here every now and then to see whats going on, and i have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when i first came here.
for example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world).
-
-
Caedes
Hooberus,
Speaking of pseudoscience and there you are. So this new creationist 'theory' what is it? In your own words without cutting and pasting. Does it have any empirical evidence, are there any peer reviewed studies to back up this bold claim. By peer reviewed, I do mean by a reputable authority of course.
I mean you have a 'theory', that must mean there is a large body of evidence and research completed and reviewed by genuine scientists to talk about. Or is it just about getting some fools to part with their hard earned cash and purchase a book. You know that sounds awfully like that stupid cult my mother is so fond of, they're always trying to sell stuff too.
Mr Ben,
Although I appreciate you might have the best of intentions, it is up to Simon if he wants to give you a
soapboxyour own read-only thread until then this is a discussion forum. As an atheist I feel that a read-only thread of this type would only serve to alienate theistic posters. I wonder how you would feel if a theistic poster ran a similar thread telling people that s/he will decide where people can reply to his/her thread. My feeling is that the appropriate place to post a comment is on the thread itself.Besides, do you want to give the impression that you think that your post is so superior to the posts of all other contributors to this forum? If not then have the grace to accept that others will have comments to make on your contribution. Some people might even disagree with you and want to post a rebuttal, whilst I might personally think that Hooberus has to have f and b sewn into his pants for early morning logistical purposes, I would defend his right to post a reply on 'your thread'
Having said all that, I do like the posts you have made and would obviously tend to agree with you regarding science and creationism. Hope you keep on posting.