cofty

Joined

• started 464 topics
• posted 24,957 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by cofty

• 
  22

  Does the Jehovah's Witnesses religoius cult create people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder ?

  by Finkelstein in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the american psychiatry association lists nine symptoms – if someone ticks five of these, they could have narcissistic personality disorder.

  the nine points of narcissism.

  has a grandiose sense of self-importance.. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.. believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people.. requires excessive admiration.. has a sense of entitlement.. is inter-personally exploitative (takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  What Steve said ^^^

  Our personalities are very much rooted in genetics.

  JWs cover the entire spectrum of personality types.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  No matter how scientific you want to be cofty, you must understand this is not science but faith.

  To call something "faith" is to say absolutely nothing useful about it. It is an attempt to avoid the reasonable burden of giving evidence to support your assertions.

  Faith is absolutely anti-scientific. My previous post explains why this is so in detail. Your faith-based position does the exact opposite of promoting the well-being of conscious creatures.

  Faith is a Divine gift and I don't know why some people does not have it.

  I spent most of my life basing my beliefs on faith. Eventually I realised that faith is not a proper basis for knowledge. It is something people resort to when they lack evidence. Faith is a hindrance to morality. Faith is not a Virtue...
  
  
  
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Imagine we are taking part in a panel of experts advising the government on the ethics of stem-cell research.

  A succession of doctors explain the potential benefit in terms of lives saved and alleviation of suffering that cannot be achieved by any other means. An embryologist describes the blastula in detail, explaining how it is hollow ball of cells just a few days after conception. He tells how many of these are eventually discarded following fertility treatment and how millions of precious stem cells can be cultured from just one blastula.

  Fertility experts describe how a very high percentage of fertilised eggs at this stage of development fail to implant are spontaneously aborted without the mother even being aware. It is also explained how one of the primary functions of contraceptive pills taken by millions of women is to prevent the implantation of a fertilised ovum. All are satisfied that there is nothing resembling a nervous system or consciousness at this stage.

  All of these objective facts are presented along with mountains of laboratory results and images.

  It looks like the advice will be unanimous when a theologian asks to be heard. He tells us that at the very instant of conception something called a human soul is implanted in the zygote by an almighty god. For this reason stem-cell research should not be permitted.

  Reasonable requests for answers to questions about the nature of this thing called a soul are dismissed as a divine mystery. Objections regarding the soul/s of twins or chimera are similarly brushed aside with dogmatic statements about limbo and divine foreknowledge.

  The theologian insists that his objective is the same as the rest of the panel - to maximise the well being of CONSCIOUS creatures, but he is unwilling to join the dots and explain how refusing a cure to tens of thousands of suffering humans will achieve this goal.

  Why should the theologian's objections be given serious consideration in the panel's conclusions?

  This is just one example of many we could use to illustrate point. We could discuss a prohibition of contraception that has resulted in incalculable suffering and poverty. It has saddled parents with huge families they can ill-afford and condemned women to decades of child-bearing.

  We could discuss homosexuality and investigate whether religious objections amount to anything more objective than "god says..."

  There is no absolute standard of perfect morality. We work out ethics from the bottom-up and nobody should demand respect for dogmatic assertions that are unsupported with objective evidence.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  I can think of many situations where taking a life is a moral good. If a crowd of innocent people are being fired on by a terrorist it is heroic for a policeman to shoot him dead.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  John. The challenge is how we maximise the well being of conscious creatures.

  Harvesting millions of stem cells from blastula offers the hope of curing terrible diseases. The rewards are incalculable.

  You want to prohibit that based on a whole series of assertions about souls, limbo, life after death etc.

  If we are to take your concerns into consideration when making this decision you need to offer objective evidence. Its a perfectly reasonable request.

  This is the perfect illustration of "absolute morality" based on dogma about a theoretical perfect deity versus secular morality based on objective facts.

  Ruby please let's stick to the topic. Morality without Deity.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Evidence?
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  Please remember the topic is Morality Without Deity.
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  For the sake of discussing the moral rather than practical issues let's look at the following scenario. If there are details that you doubt then treat it as a thought-experiment.

  Stem-cell research offers the way to cure a range of debilitating diseases. No other effective treatments are possible. Human stem-cells are harvested from the blastula and grown in culture to create many generations of new cells. The original cells can produce millions of undifferentiated stem-cells.

  From a secular perspective approving stem-cell research seems like a moral good. The original blastula are left over from fertilisation treatment. By harvesting the cells countless numbers of humans will receive treatment to cure or alleviate real suffering.

  From the perspective of "absolute morality" things look different. The blastula assumes all the rights and sacredness of an adult human and stem-cell research becomes a moral evil.

  The consequences of this debate are not hypothetical. How can you justify your position and show that it is more moral. In other words how is it more effective in promoting the well-being of conscious creatures?
• 
  39

  Trinity...cross...Does it matter?

  by NikL in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been thinking about this for a while.. did jesus diee on a cross?

  does it really matter?

  it doesn't change anything that i can see.. is god a trinity?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  What do you think?

  I think your post reveals a lot of presuppositions.
  
  
• 
  210

  Morality Without Deity

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

  it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

  christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  cofty

  John in my previous post above I outlined the big picture, describing the key principles that divide us.

  You ignored all of it in favour of bickering over minor details relating to stem cell research.

  My challenge remains completely unanswered - If your system of morality is superior to a secular one that takes no account of god then you should be able to powerfully demonstrate that this is so.

  ---

  If you really want to discuss the question of the sacredness of a zygote you could acknowledged the points I made earlier...

  a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?

  Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?

  Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.