Are you trying to say something to me Darth? I don't quite understand your responses above. :)
Posts by Essan
-
24Alice
by Quillsky inalice, i have a sense that you've dug yourself a hole on this forum and don't know how to get out of it.. you would probably like to engage and share your stories as most of us do here, and as you've done in your child abuse thread, but you've created an antagonistic persona that makes it difficult for many to empathize with your real life concerns and experiences.. i suggest that you retire your "alice in wonderland" moniker and return as a normal poster, a jw with doubts.
many will understand, and you may make some friends..
-
-
-
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
Interesting Terry,
Yeah, there is a rather delicious heretical "bad boy" air about the label "Atheist", I have to admit.
I don't want to come over all 'Taoist' but due to the recent discussions I've been pondering what the various 'camps' of Theist, Agnostic and Atheist bring to life, because it seems that despite our personal preferences and beliefs, or lack thereof, they all end up serving their purpose in the "machinery" of life, so to speak.
What I think Atheism brings is 'heat' and Atheism is the agency which opposes and 'rubs up against' Theism, the resulting friction causing 'heat', energy, passion. Theism and Atheism are the partners in that heat generating 'Tango' and the heat probably fuels change, motion, possibly more rapidly than would otherwise occur.
Agnosticism may be more realistic or truthful, but it's not a very potent agency for change or movement and while that isn't 'right' or 'wrong', life doesn't seem to much care for 'truth", it just seems to want to move, and therefore agencies of motion appear, antagonistic opposites leading to explosive combustion out which movement and new combinations continually arise.
Abstract ramblings. LOL.
-
24
Alice
by Quillsky inalice, i have a sense that you've dug yourself a hole on this forum and don't know how to get out of it.. you would probably like to engage and share your stories as most of us do here, and as you've done in your child abuse thread, but you've created an antagonistic persona that makes it difficult for many to empathize with your real life concerns and experiences.. i suggest that you retire your "alice in wonderland" moniker and return as a normal poster, a jw with doubts.
many will understand, and you may make some friends..
-
-
Essan
I have a soft spot for Alice. Strangely, I think many here do. And if she changed her approach I think she'd be made very welcome. I don't see people holding a grudge for long. There is a lot going on psychologically behind the scenes for Alice, I suspect, and I think many here intuit that and can't help bearing t in mind.
In a way, I'd be sad if she just came back with a different name and nobody knew who she was and she felt she had to hide her JWN past. We'd lose the sense of a 'journey' and she'd always feel she wouldn't be accepted if people knew who she really was. But I think she would be accepted.
-
4
Questions from Readers: Might the Bibles prohibition about blood apply only to blood from a victim killed by man, not to unbled meat of an animal that died of itself or blood from a live animal or human?
by pirata ini was suprised to see that there was a 'question from readers' written (27 years ago!
) providing a rebuttal to those who use leviticus 17:10-15 (such as myself) to argue that the prohibiltion against blood only applies for a life that is taken.. i will present the article here.
let's see what counterarguments we can come up with:.
-
-
Essan
It seems to me that they can't prove that someone not under the Mosaic law was required to avoid blood. The Israelites were allowed to provide unbled meat to them, actually aiding them in eating blood, and presumably also profiting from it. That says a lot.
The try to make it seems that only people who weren't worshippers of God were allowed, when really it's those who weren't under the Mosaic law, as Christians are not. Proselytes came under the law, as I understand it.
It's so sad that they were given the opportunities such as this to soften their blood policy and save lives, but they never took them.
-
139
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm inthere seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
-
-
Essan
Sorry Bohm, as you can see I'm carrying on at least two fairly in-depth discussions on this thread and more on others so I may have missed a few questions. I tried scanning back to pick them out but I'm not entirely sure which you are referring to.
Would you be prepared to repeat them?
One I noticed was about would I see Dawkins saying that "God almost certainly doesn't exist" (or suchlike) as being in your 'Atheist 2' category. I have to say I'd struggle to do that because I feel his statement is fraudulent. The reason I feel this is that his reference to near "certainty", which invokes probability, is completely bogus. It's entirely false that "there is a high probability that God doesn't exist" because it impossible to measure this probability. Many have tried and have all received wildly differing results because with so many of the factors involved being unknowns, probability cannot be measured. What this reveals is that when one clearly takes a 'side', as Dawkins does against God's existence, yet also fraudulently invokes supposed probability, what they are really doing is stating a belief but attempting to weasel out of it at the same time by couching it in scientific terms that the belief actually has no right to.
I see this as very similar to a Theist who says "I have faith in God's existence".
So i see such statements as being those of a sneaky "atheist 1" - unless sneakiness is the definition of atheist 2: one who makes bogus references to "probability" and claims to use "believe" differently to everyone else, whereas an atheist 1 just has the courage of his convictions to say "God does not exist, dammit!" :)
-
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, if someone doesn't know for sure and can't see a way to know right now, then they are literally Agnostic. So why would they call themselves Atheist, other than through ignorance?
I have a theory as to why, but you won't like it.
I think many are not true Atheists at all, but something like 'biased-Agnostics'. They don't know, and realize they can't know right now if God exists or not. Therefore they are Agnostic, period. However, they don't allow the full inevitable implications of this realization to guide their thinking, either because they can't comprehend them or because they don't want to. Instead, bias induces them to play with false notions of the supposed "probability" of God's nonexistence which, when most of the factors are unknown, as in this case, cannot be reliably established, so such talk of ‘probability’ is a poor disguise for faith and preference based belief. Despite not knowing, and realizing that they can't know, their bias induces them to take a side against Theism. It's a self-contradictory position. The head says "I don't and can't know" but the heart says "Damn those Theists are stupid! I'd love to prove them wrong" or perhaps "I don't know if there is a God but I certainly hope not".
Strict Agnosticism spoils the 'fun' of bias and strong opinion either way, because it constantly points to the futility of these things. But such things are enjoyable to humans. Humans love beliefs and and love taking sides and then attacking the designated 'enemy'. So, frustrated Agnostics take their 'biased-Agnosticism' and drift towards Atheism, where an exciting anti-Theistic carnival is constantly in full swing LOL. Strong anti-theistic preferences and assaults are allowed and encouraged, and from within 'Atheism" these 'biased-Agnostics' attempt to remodel it to suit their preference, and in the process muddy the waters of both Atheism and Agnosticism. They even sometimes attack traditional Atheism and Agnosticism because these, by their very existence, expose this increasingly dominant version of Atheism - which is neither real agnosticism nor real atheism - as being a rather unnecessary and self-contradictory position.
Here's a thought, if this agnostic-flavoured Atheism eventually ousts and replaces traditional atheistic denial completely, as seems inevitable, and if Theism were to similarly soften over time into an agnostic-flavoured Theism-lite, might the two dance around each other ever more closely and eventually meet and everyone agree that they don't know sh** and go and crack a beer with the Agnostics?
-
139
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm inthere seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
-
-
Essan
Hi Caedes, I think my skin is fairly thick, however I have been debating similar subjects in multiple threads recently and in many cases the responses have simply descended into relentless ad hominem and I wanted to make sure that didn't happen here because, as well as getting tiresome after a while, it also also derails the debate. I don't think I've spoken to you before. Thankfully it seems that both you and Bohm are prepared to 'play nice' :)
By first cause I just meant first cause. I don't imply a "supernatural connotation" but I do allow for various theories regarding what that "first cause" might be. Basic theism as a response to this reasonable notion of a "first cause" may not be accurate, but it is itself reasonable. It's possible to have more than one reasonable possibility. As I can only keep repeating, I think that claiming that an Intelligent "first cause" - God - as an explanation for the complexity of the Universe, is only as sensible or as evidenced as Santa or the Easter bunny is spectacularly unfair, inaccurate and unreasonably dismissive.
Your use of 'supernatural' and 'natural' is wrong, IMO. You speak as if what is "supernatural" and "natural" is objective. They aren't. They are entirely subjective and also subject to change over time. 'Supernatural" just means that which cannot be explained according to our current scientific understanding. An "eclipse" was at one time considered a "supernatural" event, until it came to be understood and was deemed "natural". Therefore saying that science has no dealings with the "supernatural" and that God is "supernatural" is bogus. Science these days deals directly with things that would be deemed by the man on the street as pretty damned supernatural and which still shocks even scientists themselves - such as particles the can be in two places at the same time: bilocation - and discoveries are showing the quantum world to be more bizarre and "supernatural", or "spooky" as Einstein said, everyday. As soon as these phenomena are observed and explanations are attempted, they become "natural". Therefore, God cannot be placed in the "supernatural" bucket and discarded with the claim that the notion is and will always be "unscientific". (BTW. A "theory" is not that which is "proven" in the sense most understand proven as categorically determining undeniable fact, it just meets the scientific standards to be considered "plausible" enough to be widely accepted, for now. You said that the 'many worlds' idea has "not been proven". Yet, it is also often referred to as a "theory" as well as a "hypothesis".).
But let me ask you a question so that I understand your position more clearly.
You have said that denial of the existence of God is exactly as justified as the denial of the existence of Santa and The Easter bunny. So what probability do you assign to the existence of this unholy 'Trinity', exactly? :)
-
139
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm inthere seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
-
-
Essan
PS Bohm,
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "Atheism" was developed by Scientists is a lab, and the concept released into the world. LOL. In that lab, the Scientists only ever used "belief" to indicate probability (all fantasy, but no matter). So, they release "Atheism" as a concept into the non-scientific world with the mantra "Atheists - We do not believe in God". And this idea finds a home in receptive minds. There was no "manual" that came with this notion. No guidebook to scientific language. So when a non-scientist picks up this mantra and thinks "Yeah, I agree with that". He has no idea that "believe" means anything other than believe has always meant to him. He doesn't know the code. When he repeats it "I believe there is no God" he means it.
The worlds atheists were not schooled in the scientific code. To them, believe means believe. Even if it were the case that these hypothetical Scientists meant "probably", there is no way that they were able to convey this usage to all atheists. It's nonsense. In fact, atheism springs up everywhere, in all backgrounds, throughout the centuries. It didn't come from scientists and has no connection to scientific language.
If you could prove the technical scientific origin, which you can't, your point is still as crazy as saying that because a knife designer designed his knife for cutting vegetables (but boxed the knife labeled only as "knife") then all who bought his knife are incapable of harming anyone or using it for any other purpose because the knife was designed only for vegetables. LOL. "No these ones never mean any harm, when they use the knife they mean only to cut vegetables, because that's is what the knife was designed for, they adhere to the intent and meaning of the item as determined by it's designers. They can't use this knife for anything else."
How can all the worlds atheists be using "belief" differently to everyone else, and differently to the way they use it in every other context, and as part of some supposed technical scientific language without anyone ever telling them about it? Some kind of supernatural planetary osmosis?
-
139
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm inthere seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
-
-
Essan
Bohm, this is no different to Theistic "belief", which often includes a varying percentage of doubt bridged by faith to reach - "Belief".
Remember what the main debate is, that Atheistic belief is radically different to Theistic belief. I haven't accepted the bait and switch that your posited scientific "belief" (which you have not shown is standard among Scientists) is the same as atheistic "belief" because you have absolutely failed to prove this connection.
Atheist are not exclusively scientists. They use "believe" as people generally use believe. Atheism as a word or a philosophy did not arise in a lab, nor was it formed from technical scientific language. And in any case, scientists commonly use "believe" in the same way as everybody else.
You have no case. LOL.
-
139
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm inthere seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.
i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.
-
-
Essan
Hi Caedes,
Only a brief rsponse to your right now also.
"You said: Err no, everyone does not agree. Interesting that you should presume to speak for 'everyone', how egotistical."
First of all, do you think we can keep this civil? I could do without the personal attacks from yet another poster. Let's just deal with the issues. If you think my statements are flawed then just disprove them. We don't need to start causticly launching negative judgments right from the first sentence. Fair enough?
What I said was that everyone acknowledges the need for a 'First Cause". I didn't say that cause was God. If there are people who feel the universe doesn't require any cause at all, then, as bizarre as that sounds to me and as much as it is news to me, then yes, it would be inaccurate to say that everyone acknowledges the necessity of a cause. You quoted Hawking "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.". But you make a switch here, I feel. I said everyone acknowledges a need for a first cause. Hawking doesn't say the Universe doesn't need a first cause, as far as I can see, he just claims that cause isn't God. So this doesn't disprove what I said. For Hawking the "First Cause" is perhaps the Big Bang - but he still has a First Cause.
My point was that seeing as almost everyone (acceptable?) as far as I am aware acknowledges the need for a first cause, and because the Universe apparently displays complex "design", it is reasonable for some to assign that to an Intelligent First Cause - which came to be known as God. It is a reasonable position. My point is that it is not the ridiculous fantasy you insist it is by comparing it to Santa and the Easter Bunny. I think that is a very unreasonable comparison.
There is a staggering amount of empirical evidence for this position - the entire Universe. But as with most evidence it can be interpreted various ways. Remember, I'm not arguing that Theism is correct, just not the laughable fairy tale you claim. Despite my clearly stating that I am not a Theist you and several other posters seem to want to cast me in that role.
You said: "Strangely, I would think that the 'answer' of god is about as unsatisfying as one could get, a first cause exempt from the rules of cause and effect is a child's explanation"
You speak of a "first cause exempt from the rules of cause and effect" as being childish, but you yourself state "I don't acknowledge that the universe requires a first cause". So something from nothing, something subject to cause, but uncaused is more "adult" a conclusion than something from something else?
What makes your uncaused Universe any less childish than an uncaused God?
You said: "The many worlds hypothesis has not been proven"
True, yet it is taken very seriously by science and credible many scientists believe it, or other theories almost equally as bizarre.
You continue: "but even if it were, no scientific theory allows for the supernatural. You do understand that science only deals with empirically provable phenomena?"
This isn't really true. Define "supernatural".. Quantum physics displays many "supernatural" phenomena, but as they come to be discovered and slowly understood they are incorporated into our scientific understanding. And we are only just beginning to understand the quantum world. We have no idea where this investigation with lead. What is supernatural today may be seen as natural tomorrow. We can't rule out what we deem to be "supernatural" now because science may discover it later. Science doesn't only deal with empirically provable phenomena, it takes many theories very seriously and attempts to prove them. The empirical proof comes later.
Oh, turned out not to be as brief as I'd imagined.
Now let's stay civil. :)