Posts by John_Mann

posted

315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
John_Mann

I admit that the several Christian concepts of God are responsible for undefeatable justifications to Atheism.
Sad but true.
Atheism is not a conclusion from any formal logical argument.
Atheism is just a valid denial of absurd concepts of God.
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
John_Mann

Christians make a lot of specific claims about god. It is possible to show that these claims cannot be reconciled with each other or with reality.
True.
Every Christian must be an atheist depending on conflicting concepts of God.
There are several concepts of God in Christianity that doesn't make any sense at all.
The concept of Jehovah is absurd.
The calvinist concept of God is absurd.

But there are very sophisticated concepts of God in Christianity and outside like the Hindu concept of Brahmam, for example.
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
John_Mann

We can only know the thing-in-itself through philosophical concepts (read Kant).
Even your mother is only known by you as a concept of your mother.
Atheism is the denial of a concept of God.
If you choose a very flawed concept of God then your atheism is undefeatable.
Evidently...
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
John_Mann

Evidently all cults share a lot of brainwashing techniques like buzzwords.
Evidently these buzzwords are half truths.
Evidently we all know JW. Org is a cult that uses the "evidently" buzzword.
Evidently Scientism abuses a lot of the buzzword "evidence" too. Coincidence?
Evidently brainwashed scientimists never say they are actually demanding scientific evidence for everything.
Evidently we all know there are several types of evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Evidently is very easy to be an atheist with silly and flawed concepts of God and science.
32
Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. experiences
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.

not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.

a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
John_Mann

2. I believe the "singularitarian" view of the future taken over by strong artificial intelligence is probably correct.
I believed in that too (for 3 years).
They are wrong in a fundamental way.
This article helped to open my eyes:
https://www.google.com.br/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
- JW's
- Baptist church
- Spiritism (Allan Kardec)
- Nihilism
- Atheism
- Scientism
- Buddhism (not wrong, but very incomplete.)
- Agnosticism (incomplete, must be temporary to be self consistent)
- Political left (socialism)
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
John_Mann

The moment you make a claim to the effect that "god IS ...", it falls into the scope of science.
Sorry, but you have no idea what the scientific method is.
If you stick to the realm of possibilities, then you are discussing metaphysics. it's that simple.
Yes.

You are misrepresenting what metaphysics is.
Sorry but you have no idea what metaphysics is.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
John_Mann

Because if you want to reach truth you need clear definitions.
Do you agree?
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
John_Mann

Stating that 'I don't believe in deities because there's no compelling evidence to support it' isn't a metaphysical claim.
If you mean SCIENTIFIC evidence then is a metaphysical claim.
It's Scientism.
https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
John_Mann

There is no philosophy involved.
If you really think this you're against all academic knowledge in human history.
Atheism is a metaphysical claim.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.
It's that simple.
Be very careful of the those who try to prevent you from philosophy.
Philosophy is the universal headlight of human understanding.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
John_Mann

Nobody speaks for atheism.
Yes.

Because Atheism it's not a logical conclusion but one single article of personal faith.

Nietzsche is just the most famous Atheist.
Every atheist has a different metaphysical justification to the axiom of Atheism.
The nearest point of consensus in justification of Atheism is from the "Four Horsemen".
Atheism is a philosophical mess.
Atheism = I find the claims that Christians make about the world to be unconvincing.
Thank you for your justification of Atheism.
But I don't agree with your justification of faith.

Do you mean all Christians as individuals? If so, how did you get to personally know 1/3 of the world population?
Do you mean all Christian denominations? I think your knowledge of Catholicism is very poor.
Did you ever considered Agnosticism?
Agnosticism is a very logical position.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification