Religion hasn't made a positive contribution to anything. Ever.
It's been nothing but a hinderance to mankind's advancement.
Posts by Landy
-
41The positive achievements of Science and Religion in 2015. How do they compare?
by nicolaou inscience.. landed a probe on a comet, found liquid water on mars and successfully completed a ten year mission to pluto.. developed the first successful vaccine against ebola, discovered another human species in homo naledi, developed cancer killing molecules and high intensity ultrasound therapies which avoid surgery and leave healthy cells alone.
successfully mapped the human epigenome and developed the gene editing tool crispr, it's potential for medical and agricultural advance is staggering!.
found a way to produce graphene for a 1000th of the previous cost, developed cheap and sustainable methods to supply clean drinking water where water borne infections have been killing thousands, scaled up production of clean, renewable energy.. there's loads more, please feel free to add to the list.. .
-
-
-
56
What made you turn atheist or agnostic?
by LevelThePlayingField inif you were a jw and are now an atheist or agnostic, what was the tipping point that made you turn to it?.
the reason i ask is i have noticed that many who leave the jw's seem to turn to atheism, versus still having some form of a faith.
have many of you given up on god first or have you had atheistic views first and then found atheism to be true.
-
-
Landy
I'm fond of, and in complete agreement with, Carl Sagan's assessment of the situation:
- The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.
This does not, however, make me an atheist. As far as I'm concerned, claiming that there is no God is almost as irrational as claiming there is one. Again, I'll share a succinct comment from Sagan on that point as well:- An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. - Conversations with Carl Sagan (2006), edited by Tom Head, p. 70
So in one statement sagan says a belief in a theist god is ludicrous then the next one goes on to say 'well, we can't prove it's not there'??
Well, it's impossible to prove a negative. It's up to the believers to demonstrate the existence of something by producing evidence. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove it.
This is an age old example but it serves a purpose: I believe there's a huge teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars. Prove to me there isn't.
-
56
What made you turn atheist or agnostic?
by LevelThePlayingField inif you were a jw and are now an atheist or agnostic, what was the tipping point that made you turn to it?.
the reason i ask is i have noticed that many who leave the jw's seem to turn to atheism, versus still having some form of a faith.
have many of you given up on god first or have you had atheistic views first and then found atheism to be true.
-
-
-
56
What made you turn atheist or agnostic?
by LevelThePlayingField inif you were a jw and are now an atheist or agnostic, what was the tipping point that made you turn to it?.
the reason i ask is i have noticed that many who leave the jw's seem to turn to atheism, versus still having some form of a faith.
have many of you given up on god first or have you had atheistic views first and then found atheism to be true.
-
-
Landy
I used to be agnostic - now I'm not so sure :)
I did go through a periiod of agnosticism but I'm probably now a lot more athiest. Mainly down to more reading and a better understanding of natural selection.
I think i've come to accept that for me agnosticism is a big lump of intelllectual dishonesty; fence sitting at its worst. It's along the lines of Pascal's wager and thst's not for me.
-
40
Boredom at the Kingdom Hall meetings
by RULES & REGULATIONS input aside all the stupid rules,beliefs,doctrines and practices of the jehovah's witnesses.this is one of the main reasons why i stopped attending all meetings!
boredom.
monotone speakers.
-
-
Landy
Summed it up beautifully! -
7
Jehovahs Witnesses in Scotland/Glasgow - can you tell me more about these elders from Matt Barrie's judicial
by jambon1 inhaving listened to matt barrie's judicial committee i'd like ask about some of those involved.
https://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/tag/matt-barrie/.
ron hunter - am i correct in saying that he would often chair the conventions at perth?
-
-
Landy
Probably not a good idea to start naming names. Just sayin ........ -
26
Basic Principles for Forum Moderation
by Simon ina perennial issue for any online forum is moderation and applying rules.
we have a set of community guidelines and posting guidelines that are intended to make clear what is and isn't acceptable but this tends to focus on the obvious standards of behavior for, well, obvious reasons.
it's easy to talk about people being aggressive or insulting etc... as those are common and clearly unwanted behaviors and the typical issue for online communities - the most likely things to come up.. does this mean that everything *not* on the list is allowed?
-
-
Landy
All things in moderation, including moderation. :) -
8
Hope and Reality
by Alive! infor a long time, i've been moving into a place of utmost hope and faith.
universal reconciliation.
as a converted jw - i began my conversion with the joy that there is a hope for something we all would love - a world where each of us sees our fellow kind as a true brother.. i don't think that's an unhealthy way to live.. but - i'm living with the effects of corruptive thinking from a 'sect' - a divisive sect and judgemental sect that has hurt my sense of self.. it's terribly painful to have completely believed one thing, and then completely believe something else.... well that's how it feels to me.. i've read of some here who were jws for years, then became devout born agains for years and now are confirmed atheists.. wow.. how do you cope with the frivolous nature of your 'beliefs' - beliefs that were 'truths' for you in their own time.. i'm struggling - anyone else?.
-
-
Landy
There's nothing wrong with altering your beliefs. Your beliefs should be dictated by the things we learn, we should always be learning therefore our understanding is going to alter as we are able to reason more based on our current knowledge and understanding.
It's those that are unwilling to change; those that are unwilling to look outside their own narrow interpretations; those that cling to beliefs like a sinking ship that I feel sorry for.
-
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door innow what is your stance?
-
-
Landy
It's a question of ethics. Nobody has argued about the legal position.
If the WT obtained the copyright to COC it would be the moral equivalent of book-burning by a totalitarian regime. Spreading the information would be a moral good regardless of the law.
That is not the current position with COC. The copyright holder is in the process of making the information widely available and it is ethical to support that.
No. Complete red herring.
We live in a society where we agree to give the state a monopoly in violence. It works better than allowing everybody to murder people they find annoying.
Motive matters.
Yeah - you're right - it was never gonna be a defendable position
-
125
Watchtower purchases CoC copyright for undisclosed amount!
by the girl next door innow what is your stance?
-
-
Landy
WBTS can't charge for stuff but they do get heavily subsidised by my taxes. I'm more than happy to help spread things under their copyright already, and oops if it means they don't get website hits, so it's just more of the same. In any case, I really don't have an issue with making something available if the sole purpose of someone obtaining rights is to suppress it.
So the copyright law only applies if we agree with the organistion the copyright belongs to? If we don't agree with them or don't like them then all bets are off?
If we take that principle a bit further and extend itt to other laws, what's acceptable? Murder, for example. Is murder ok if the murdee (new word!) is a bit of a twat? Taking the point to extremes perhaps but it is the logical conclusion.