Posts by Jonathan Drake

305

McKinney Texas pool party?

by Marvin Shilmer in

so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.

my response: it shows a clash of expectations.

i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.

Jonathan Drake

don't think it reflects on the others, it brings the force into disrepute but bad actions only reflect badly on those committing them or any who cover it up.
Without this distinction then the argument that criminals reflect on all the others in a community of the same race becomes valid which it should not. The criminals are the criminals whatever color they happen to be and whatever shirt they happen to wear.
The problem is that for both police and color people seem unable to separate condemnation of individuals with condemnation of the group. People want to blame all black people. People want to blame all police. Neither are valid or fair.

This is a far better way to say what I was thinking. What I meant was it reflects on the group as a whole. Much better phrasing, I'm saving this for future use if you don't mind.

as far as the bit about tasers. I've been thinking about this back and forth for a few months and, again, I just can't seem to decide a position to take.

On the one hand, the police need guns as a deterrent to being assaulted and to adequately try to defend not just themselves but innocents. This is especially true in America, where not knowing if the assailant may have a weapon (specifically a gun) is a huge variable since the 2nd ammendment makes it possible for anyone to get a gun as long as they've never been convicted of crimes or diagnosed with mental instability. Even in such cases, getting around these restrictions is laughably easy.

on the other hand, would a little faith in society (as much as I hate that word now) go a long way? Might we find that people actually respect police MORE if they are unarmed? And should violence ignite against police, on what possible foundation could such a position be based when the targets of the criticism have no means of being oppressive?

perhaps the ability of truly armed response to society should only be available to the national guard or some other agency to be called in during such times.

305

McKinney Texas pool party?

by Marvin Shilmer in

so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.

my response: it shows a clash of expectations.

i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.

Jonathan Drake

police officers are public servants. They represent & enforce the law of the city, county or state in which they serve.

This quote is very much in line with my feelings toward the police. When a person becomes an officer of the law they are agreeing to be a part of a standard of behavior and to represent this country, their state, and their city. Due to this they must live up to that higher standard.

Contrast this with the general public responding to situations like Michael Brown's shooting and Freddie on Baltimore. These regular citizens may be showing up in large numbers but they are not officers of anything, they do not represent a standard and therefore the actions of one of them has no reflection on any other. This is absolutely not the same with the police, among which the actions of one absolutely does reflect on all the others.

Its difficult for me to take a side in this discussion anymore, because the more I think about it the more clouded seeing any clear stand I would take becomes. I believe few would debate what I've said above but even if that view were universally agreed upon as true it would be hard to settle all these flare ups we are seeing in society.

I recently watched a video of an Australian man reacting to the actions of police (which he witnessed). I wish I could find this video, alas I cannot; but, in the video the he responds to the police shooting a suspect by being utterly surprised and disgusted. He cannot believe the officer just shot the person instead of tasering them. I feel it is a valid point to make: why are the police here trained to draw their gun instead of a taser or some other non lethal response option? why are they trained to respond with such extreme measures so quickly? If you would argue they aren't trained that way but emotions set in then why aren't they trained until they can TRULY be trusted and released from duty of they can't be? Why can't what works in other countries work here, such as in Australia?

I do not share the opinion that our police force in America is prejudiced or racist, but I do feel that all of these events are evidence that there is a problem. Since the police represent a united group that are part of a standard representing their country and cities of residence it is the responsibility of their side to change in ways that will please the people.

The only way I currently see this happening, is a police force that has no lethal weaponry on their person.

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

So you need to realize that, at its basic level, it is a response to a CLAIM not a belief.

Im sorry if I'm jumping in unwelcome but I can't make sense out of this statement.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos"a god" (see theo-).

This was how it was understood originally. It originates from Greece, a culture which when dealing with God was talking about the gods of their pantheon. When a person was "atheos" in Greece it meant they were without the gods (of the Greek pantheon).

Now since then, our culture and language have evolved. To be, "a - theist," means to be, "without theism." You have likely never heard the words 'adeist' or 'adeism' which would mean, "without deism," and this is because (at least in my opinion) adeism is unnecessary.

Anyway, my point is this, atheism is position lacking theism. Theism is,

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Atheism is all about this belief, not claims. It's a non-theistic position, while a theistic position (as defined here by my handy dictionary app) is a belief in a personal God.

It is important though to separate theism and deism. Atheism is not a position against a deistic view, only a theistic view. I keep saying that to make the point that atheism is not about beliefs, it is a response and position taken against theism - one specific belief.

(this argument based strictly on etymology. To most people atheism is a position against either a theistic or deistic God, but linguistically I think this incorrect.)

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

Jonathan Drake

don't like the atheist label because it was given by the very theists.
Being a negative it gives the self evident status to theism.

I think that might be why we are now seeing the rise of "Secularism"

150

Disfellowshipping Image

by naazira in

jw
friends

this photo can be found in the april 15 , study edition article titled:.

why disfellowshipping is a loving provision.

just by looking at this image we can see how quickly the barrier between the congregation and former member is put up, after the announcement that this sister is no longer one of jehovah's witneses.

Jonathan Drake

So screwed up. How incredibly sad.

80

Is RIDICULE acceptable in online debating?

by nicolaou in

this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .

.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.

the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.

Jonathan Drake

"laughable nonsense" that some individuals proclaim.

Ridiculing their words is tantamount to ridiculing them (if for no other reason than they will feel this way).

It is possible to reason with a person without ridiculing them. And reasoning will bring about the same emotional response because they will get just as worked up - the difference is that they will be all worked up trying to disprove a factual position of reason and failing as oppose to arguing that they are being ridiculed and mistreated which is true.

Unfortunately, ridicule is far more likely to work against you. While it shouldn't at all have any effect on the view of your argument in terms of truth and reality, it does and it will in the minds of most people.

75

What was your eye opening moment?

by WasOnceBlind in

if you had to pinpoint the time or experience that finally made you open your eyes, what would it be?.

i think for me it was the time i saw my dad shun his brother who he had not seen in decades just because he was a da'ed jw.

i thought to my self "no way jesus would do that.

Jonathan Drake

For me it was studying the bible intensely. Specifically, learning who the FDS really was according to scripture.

80

Is RIDICULE acceptable in online debating?

by nicolaou in

this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .

.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.

the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.

Jonathan Drake

I do not feel ridicule is acceptable in any debate or discussion.

If we are going to win over any theists to the side of reason it certainly will be without ridicule.

I look at it like this: Theists ARE victims. This is just a fact, though they are not victims in the sense that they claim in these debates. They are victims in the sense that because of where they were born and who raised them (factors outside their control) they were taught dogma and gullability. They suffer from a well ingrained delusion passed down by parents or priests.

In the same sense I would never ridicule a victim of robbery, rape, assault or any other crime for suffering in the way they have I will not ridicule a victim of faith. (Though I've had moments where my patience was worn thin).

Now. I will not say the same of the teachers and leaders of religion. these such men and women deserve ridicule, they deserve to be tried and imprisoned for all their crimes, including the suffering of theists.

141

Schoolyard bully mentality

by FusionTheism in

i'm not naming names, but i just want to encourage people on here or on reddit or twitter, and tell you that you do not have to tolerate people who act like schoolyard bullies in the way they speak to you online.

i think anonymity is a big part of it.

they feel like there is zero accountability so they can be a bully all they want.. i recommend just ignoring or blocking anyone who is verbally abusive or treats you like schoolyard bullies treated you.. life is way too short to spend any time dealing with those kinds of people..

Jonathan Drake

You use that word reasonable again, perhaps I am deceiving myself in thinking I can reason but I cannot even get to the point you are describing!

It is reasonable to investigate claims of universal truth. Religious beliefs claim that there is a God who made the world and has directly had interaction with it since in various ways (except ,for some reason, the last 2000 years). It's natural for human beings to want to investigate such claims.

if I told you that your spouse was cheating on you, wouldn't you demand evidence? You would want to investigate why I believe this to be true and scrutinize my reasons.

The same would be true if I told you that eating blue Popsicles can literally make you fly. Would you believe this? Not without some serious evidence, I'm sure.

so now I tell you that 2000 years ago a man performed miraculous healing, resurrected the dead, and then was murdered all as a plan by God to save your soul (or whatever, wash you of sin etc) and you (if you're a theist) require no proof at all.

people naturally investigate everything for whether it is true or not EXCEPT faith. As a species our credulity scales with evidence everywhere but religion - this is why it is not reasonable, because it has been deemed unacceptable to investigate it for real truth while we do the same for literally everything else.

141

Schoolyard bully mentality

by FusionTheism in

i'm not naming names, but i just want to encourage people on here or on reddit or twitter, and tell you that you do not have to tolerate people who act like schoolyard bullies in the way they speak to you online.

i think anonymity is a big part of it.

they feel like there is zero accountability so they can be a bully all they want.. i recommend just ignoring or blocking anyone who is verbally abusive or treats you like schoolyard bullies treated you.. life is way too short to spend any time dealing with those kinds of people..

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake,
Are you saying that a person must reject faith in order to be a good person or to actively make the world a better place?
Can you list 5 atheists who changed the world for the better?
I can name hundreds of theists/deists:
* William Wilberforce
* Abraham Lincoln
* George Washington
* Martin Luther King Jr.
* John F Kennedy
* Francis Collins
* Isaac Newton
* Barack Obama
* Mother Theresa

No I would never say that a person must reject faith to make the word a better place. That's a ridiculous thing to say because it's factually wrong. People of faith have made positive contributions to society. But PEOPLE aren't being scrutinized, their beliefs and religions are. PEOPLE have made positive changes in the world, religion paved the way to the holocaust.

Making the claim you're making here doesn't actually say anything. The world has been dominated by religion all the way up to Darwin, and even after Darwin it still has a grip on society. Of course there have been theists who made the world a better place, but in order to do so what first had to happen was the church had to lose its authority.

While religion actually RULED we, as a species, were unable to advance ethically, morally, or scientifically. Attempts to do so were labeled heresy and resulted in death or imprisonment.

While religion ruled, people lived in huts and mud, died of diseases believed to be caused by scourges and were kept poor while kings and princes lived lives of luxury believed to be ordained by god and supported by the church. Only because of science has any of this changed, diseases were no longer because of God, people had good food and homes and those of lower classes today enjoy better luxuries than kings and princes could ever even dream of under religious rule. Only by man and because of man has society improved and that only because religion lost its control.

i could absolutely name atheists who changed the world, but it doesn't actually mean anything, I won't reduce their accomplishments to some pointless competition. Even if I could not do this, it doesn't change the empirical evidence that religion is the source of the worst things that ever happened in our history and now.

I cannot stress enough the example of stem cell research. Banned because of religious dogma. Because this research exists and could end the suffering of millions of people, the fact that those millions suffer still must be laid at the feet of religion as its fault. This is only one example of the harms of religion affecting society out of numerous others.