Q, many "Atheists" tend to be quite zealous about spreading their "Atheism". It's similar to how professed "Skeptics" can be quite zealous about espousing their "Skepticism". There are many "Atheist" groups and they seem to find enough to talk about. Perhaps, like Nic, they meet to plan how to overthrow and subsume "agnosticism", wiping it from the pages of history? :)
Posts by Essan
-
243Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
-
31
Watchtower's Jesus = Michael doctrine
by Ding ini've never really understood the watchtower's teaching on jesus being michael.
here is what i understand they teach:.
1. jehovah's first creation was the archangel michael.. 2. jesus was nothing more than a perfect man, not michael the archangel in human form.. 3. rather, when jesus was conceived in mary, michael went out of existence and his impersonal life force was put into jesus (analogous to sharing the same pacemaker).. 4. when jesus died, his impersonal life force went back into a recreated archangel michael.. .
-
-
Essan
JW's must have some ridiculous argument to explain away Jude's references to the Assumption though, do they not? Or do they just ignore it?
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Wow Zid, you really go for the jugular with insults and aspersions if someone doesn't agree with you. Don't you think debate can be civil? That's as savage an attack as a JW who had his cherished beliefs questioned might make. And some wonder why 'Atheism' is sometimes likened to a religious belief?
And what is my supposed "agenda"?
The thread is about debating whether or not Atheism is a belief, a 'non-belief' or an 'anti-belief'. Obviously I was contending it is a belief. That's right on topic. So what's your problem?
-
269
Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?
by flipper inafter reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
-
-
Essan
Djeggnog said: "I pointed out to him that Russell didn't predict any dates, least of all make the claim that the world would come to an end in 1914, and any statements to this effect would be false. Russell hasn't predict 1914, but believed that the Gentile Times as to which Jesus spoke at Luke 21:24 would end in 1914....Pastor Russell had from 1876, for almost 40 years, preached 1914 as a marked year, but he never made any predictions as to what would occur at that time."
Sigh. This is beyond absurd. While I am pleased that you have been more candid in admitting one of your false claims, you continue to make false claims without having done the necessary research! Why? Why pontificate about things of which you are ignorant?
What you say here is totally false and is easily proven to be false with just a few quotes. Russell DID predict the final catastrophic explosion of Armageddon for 1914 for and all sorts of related attendant supernatural events. You are as wrong about this as about Russell ever teaching 1914 as the years beginning Christ's invisible presence.
Now are you going to go away and do the research to discover this and correct your new false claims or do we have to do the research for you again and hand feed you endless quotes?
Please just save us all the time and effort, do a modicum of research, and concede that this claim is also false.
A few quotes can be found here, enough to establish the facts, if you are interested in the facts.
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php
Here is just one example:
- "True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved ?. In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914?. Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word." Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is At Hand (1889) pp.99, 101
-
-
-
Essan
Alice asid: "Getting back to the letter, if someone believes counter doctrines that are diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches, why would they be associating with Jehovah's Witnesses?"
Oh I don't know, perhaps to avoid being DF'd and shunned by lifelong friends and family?
Alice said: "As long as I kept what I believed to myself, nobody will know about it, but when I start communicating what I believe with others, problems will develop"
Yeah, keep your mouth shut. Keep your head down and you just might get to stay on speaking terms with your friends and family.
CULT!
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
LOL. Well this has been interesting.
If I could sum up what we have learned in this debate it would be:
PS. Cyberjesus, that's not "wisdom", it's creative writing.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Thanks Zoiks. I enjoy a good robust debate. As long as everyone tries not to take it too seriously :)
My main irritation with the ever broadening (re)definition of "atheist" is that in many cases I see the process as rather dishonest and a bit self serving. Also because this continual broadening of the definition eventually pushes into and blurs the lines of other labels, to the extent that some "atheists", like Nic, attempt a 'coup' on other labels, like "agnostic", trying to wipe the term out and 'swallow' it within atheism. Nic argues that there is no such thing as an agnostic. Imagine that. Thousands of years of philosophical tradition wiped out at the whim of an expansionist "atheist"? LOL
Broadening definitions eventually become meaningless. "Atheism" is becoming a cool club (or religion Lol) that it seems everyone wants to join, even though they can't agree on anything except that a significant number of them don't actually want to abide by the established definition of "atheist".
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
SixofNine sid: likewise, absence of evidence that supernatural forces have changed anything on planet earth may be considered as positive evidence that no supernatural forces exist.
Agreed, but the "evidence" does not constitute proof. There is a difference. Both sides can present "evidence". Neither can prove it. Probability establishes likelihood, not fact. And in a scenario which, if it were to be true, so much would remain unknown (as in the case of God) the probability cannot be accurately measured.
For instance it is considered "highly probable" that we are living in a Matrix-like simulation, in which the "Creator" (God?) is part of some "advanced civilization".
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
What can we conclude from that? Not a hell of a lot. We can't prove it.
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Nic said: Well I reject the definition of 'atheist' as someone who definitely 'believes' that there is no god and, more to the point, so do almost all atheists!
Then why not select the right label to identify yourself with, or create a new one if a suitable one does not already exist? Why try to change the meaning of an already well established label but which doesn't suit you? If you have no belief either way, why not call yourself "agnostic"? Why create a scenario in which you have real atheists who say "God does not exist" alongside faux atheists, essentially 'stealing' their label, saying "Well, I don't know for sure"?
These are two quite different viewpoints aren't they? Why have them quashed up together cheek by jowel under a label which doesn't describe them both.
It's almost like some have an emotional attachment to the label "atheist" and don't want to give it up even though they clearly don't fit the definition of an "atheist".
-
243
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky inmy opinion is that atheism is not a belief.
it is a belief in no belief..
-
-
Essan
Terry, I'm defending the original meaning and primary definition of "Atheist". I'm not imposing "other" definitions, you are.
- "Atheist
- 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."'
Atheists themselves can't agree on a definition because they have all been so busy redefining it any which way they please that it has become virtually meaningless and ridiculously broad (even including all new born babies, according to you) so that there is no consensus anymore, so it is impossible to "agree on a definition" beforehand. Actually, I already posted the definitions I was working from pages ago, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the entire thread.