A logically consistent system of thought must embrace some level of doubt (thank you Herr Gödel) as necessary.
But you're demanding proof beyond all doubt.
Don't you see any problem with this statement?
John_Mann
JoinedPosts by John_Mann
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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.
-
-
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = 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
2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.
By this standard the mainstream definition of atheism is invalid.
There's PROBABLY no God. - Richard Dawkins.
Actually by this standard all definitions in human history are invalid.
BTW how can one accept this very standard as being beyond all reasonable doubt?
This standard doesn't sounds cultish to you?
-
24
Pretend to support Critical Thinking, but forbid it when directed toward the "leadership"
by doubtfull1799 inthis from the latest watchtower article on propaganda:.
"keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.
because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if peo- ple .
-
-
John_Mann
The jesus thing would mean nothing, either--and allah would have been zilch in value, too.
Islam wants to rule the entire world. Like you or not.
And the only ones recorded in history capable to stop Islam are Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism.
The "milk-shake" atheism and Scientism will not stop Islam with froth.
-
24
Pretend to support Critical Thinking, but forbid it when directed toward the "leadership"
by doubtfull1799 inthis from the latest watchtower article on propaganda:.
"keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.
because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if peo- ple .
-
-
John_Mann
The human nature is religious. Man is a religious being.
Every government in history knew this feature of human nature.
That's why governments always had state or imperial cults. Even in atheist governments like North Korea.
Scientism is the imperial cult of the globalist "government".
This global government is only trying to rule the world. The first thing to rule something is a plan. And the plan of any government must have a religion. Scientism is the chosen cult of the globalist government.
Scientism is spread everywhere now, just like a plague. Interestingly it's adepts are quite unaware of following the cult. It's a very powerful cult.
The Catholic Church prevailed upon several pagan cults including imperial cults but never before a cult like this.
The Scientism on steroids is the technological singularity which they think an AI will build or will be a god.
But I have faith the Church of Christ will prevail once again. The very gates of hell will never prevail upon the Holy Church.
-
24
Pretend to support Critical Thinking, but forbid it when directed toward the "leadership"
by doubtfull1799 inthis from the latest watchtower article on propaganda:.
"keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.
because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if peo- ple .
-
-
John_Mann
If religious people such as yourself despise "scientism" so much and love "God" so much, why do they search for the best doctor when struck with cancer or any other chronic disease?
Because a doctor practises science and not scientism.
-
24
Pretend to support Critical Thinking, but forbid it when directed toward the "leadership"
by doubtfull1799 inthis from the latest watchtower article on propaganda:.
"keep in mind that satan does not want you to think clearly or reason things out well.
because propaganda “is likely to be most effective,” says one source, “if peo- ple .
-
-
John_Mann
Another way of saying "evidently," their favourite word! For an interesting exercise do a search for that word in the Watchtower library and see how many times they use it - you will be amazed. Especially when you realise that each time they use it they are making an assertion for which they actually have no evidence...
The second one is "really".
The Scientism cult loves the "evidence" too. Evidence and "just", "only", "merely" (just neurochemicals, only natural laws, etc..).
The gospel of Scientism is the "theory of everything". They say this theory of everything will be the unification of quantum mechanics (cults love the quantum) and the theory of relativity. This unification will explain things like why you prefer jazz instead of hip-hop and things like that.
Evidently is a cult.
-
42
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne ini'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
-
-
John_Mann
The future is knowable to god.
Yes. Even free-will.
But through His omnipotence and not omniscience.
-
42
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne ini'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
-
-
John_Mann
His omniscience makes Him know the things exactly how they are.
Free-will is imprevisible and the future it's unknown by nature.
At the hour of death of every human being God uses His medium knowledge through His omnipotence to know situations of if-then and then judge the soul.
Matthew 10:14,15 is the example of the medium knowledge used by God.
-
42
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne ini'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
-
-
John_Mann
Au contraire. "Lack" encompasses denial. Denial necessitates "lack".
I think just the opposite.
Usually I have in mind the atheism proposed by Nietzsche and the Four Horsemen.
And both concepts are denial and not lack.
But I know there's people with lack of belief.
I think that's why the majority of formal definitions of atheism have denial and/or lack.
-
42
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne ini'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
-
-
John_Mann
I'm not saying is wrong to define atheism as lack of belief in concepts of God.
But I'm saying "denial" is more complete than "lack".
I'm an atheist regarding several concepts of God. And I have in mind the "denial" not the "lack".