Posts by cofty

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Cofty talks about god; I am refering to Jehovah of the Bible - Fishy

Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.

The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.

All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP. You and John_Mann are yet to address any of them specifically.

When anybody asks theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism. - John_Mann

The OP of this thread has absolutely no connection with "scientism". It would be a more interesting discussion if you would drop this red herring and focus on the specific points made in the OP.

Not believing doesn't make it so either. --except for cofty - Fishy

Of course not. The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

I would be happy to discuss the ontological argument John_mann but it has nothing at all to do with this thread.

Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".

We are on page 11 and you still haven't addressed anything in the OP.

1

Meaning & Chaos Harris Peterson round 2

by azor in

jw
friends

check it out on sam harris podcast "waking up".

this is what it should have been on the first round.

what are your thoughts?.

cofty

Thanks Azor, I will check it out later. Round 1 was frustrating.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

cofty, according to your morality, why shouldn't you allow God to be unmeasuable instead of having to measure up to your rules of evidence - Fishy

I don't measure god by my standards; I hold him up to his own claims.

He claims to be love but by his own definition of love he is a hypocrite. Theism is internally contradictory.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

SBF - I am perfectly satisfied with the clarity of my OP.

So far you have tried to divert the topic to your usual boring po-mo rhetoric and now you seem to think I need your help to explain myself.

I sigh every time I see your icon on one of my threads.

33

What are some things JWs re-name to make themselves different than Christians?

by NikL in

jw
friends

jws re-name things so they seem like they are different than other religions.

(of course we know they are different but that's another story).

i was just thinking about those things where they are like most everyone else in christendom but the re-name it to seem different.. for example god forbid they have a church, it's a "kingdom hall".. they don't have pastors and deacons they have "elders" and "ministerial servants".. they don't have tithing but they will have family heads fill out a paper saying how much they can contribute on a monthly basis (not sure if there is a name for that...unless it's tithing.

cofty

B.C. = B.C.E.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

the capability to reason must give us the choice to reject any 'benefit' of religion for a better method which encompasses group thinking. - Fairlane

Which is the big question. What better method for example?

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

Are we as rational beings... - Fairlane

I think it's more true to say that we are only partly rational beings.

Nobody has more contempt for woo woo than I do but I think Haidt raises an interesting question.

Step 1 - Superstitious beliefs arose as the side-effect of hypersensitive agency detection. We assume that random events are caused by unseen beings. Humans lived in small family groups of hunter-gatherers.

Step 2 - Religious ritual activates the "hive switch" and binds hundreds or thousands of people who are not genetically related into groups working for common goals.

Religions that are more effective in achieving group success dominate or absorb groups with less effective religious beliefs and rituals.

So what about now? As people increasingly reject irrational belief systems and become more individualistic do we lose anything valuable? If so what can replace it?

Is the success of Trump partly down to his ability - perhaps unknowingly - to speak to certain intuitions that are part of our evolutionary inheritance?

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

The topic subject is explained in the OP.

I am taking it as a given that the supernatural assumptions of religion are not objectively true. If somebody disagrees and wants to discuss that instead then that would be a different thread.

Did religion play a valuable role in our evolution, binding together large groups of people to achieve common goals? Despite the obvious problems with religion do we lose anything valuable by discarding it completely?