Posts by Saethydd

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

What you mean by objective?

I literally defined the word immediately after I said it. I will reword it.

Objective knowledge: knowledge which can be applied or obtained by anyone regardless of their beliefs.

So you don't understand the scientific method. The scientific method is only applicable to the physical world.
...
Energy is physical.

No, I do understand the scientific method. The issue here seems to be that either we have different definitions of "physical," or you don't understand energy. I would define physical as anything which exists materially. Energy is immaterial, therefore not physical.

Energy, however, does affect the material world in observable and measurable ways, which is why I can believe in it. In fact, if a deity or any other spiritual being did exist, I would expect them to exist as beings of pure energy, but to my knowledge, no verified or repeatable observation of such a being exists. Neither does there exist any theory for how pure energy could manifest itself as an intelligent entity. With that being the case I remain skeptical of any supposed knowledge about spirit creatures.

Now perhaps I am wrong about this, but if spiritual beings have any impact at all on us physical beings then it seems like there should be some evidence of how they can do that.

How do you scientifically measure the potential of an idea before it's execution? Even dreams have an impact on the physical world.

I don't know... yet. The scientific method has been applied to learn more about the nature of both thoughts and dreams than anyone would have thought possible 500 years ago, so who is to say that it won't one day be capable of that.

I have enjoyed our debate, I believe that debate has value in its ability to make one think and refine their own ideas. I will do my best to examine your arguments, but as things stand now I still see no way for metaphysics or philosophy to prove the existence of a soul, creator, or life after death. I believe that philosophy and metaphysics are tools for introspection, therefore they will only tell you more about who you are as a person, not about the nature of the Universe.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

The very scientific method is supposed to be only applied to the physical world, just like an ordinary tool (hammer or screwdriver). I don't know if you're aware of that but you're applying a strange metaphysical interpretation upon science. You say science is the only way to get knowledge and scientific method is applicable to metaphysics. Nowhere in science there are such statements.

Well, I'm saying that science is the only way to get knowledge that is objective. (won't change depending on who seeks the knowledge) Thus making the scientific method, the only way, that I know of, for an individual to determine the accuracy of a claim. Additionally, I would argue your assertion that the scientific method can only be applied to the physical world is flawed. After all the scientific method is simply a question to which someone applies systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation and then formulates, tests, and modifies a hypothesis to that question. In principle, the scientific method can be applied to study things that aren't directly perceivable, energy for example. I will grant that the scientific method is better with some subjects than it is with other subjects, and there are some questions it can't answer, but anything that has an impact on the physical world can be measured, and directly or indirectly observed.

In fact you are following a philosophical system called positivism. Idk if you're aware of that or if you don't know what the scientific method is or what metaphysics is. Probably you're just a blind follower of positivism (lately it's spreading like a plague).

I'm aware what positivism is, and I gladly support it because the "mission statement" of logical positivism is to prevent the confusion caused by unclear language and unverifiable claims, both of which are ideals I agree with completely.

The scientific method is a philosophical system and metaphysics is also. Everything I said is subject to philosophical study since the dawn of man. And the test of it is time. Nature itself "hates" waste. If something is not true it will never last too much time. My view is standing for thousands years throughout many civilizations. Your view is just a little shadow in the stream of time. No matter how hard you try you simply can't change this fact.

You are right, metaphysics is older than the scientific method, however, the scientific method in its relatively brief period of existence has provided a large body of useful, objective, and verifiable information. Making it, in my opinion, the more valuable "tool" for attaining knowledge on which to base my actions and beliefs. In the same way that a jet is superior for traveling long distances, as opposed to a unicycle.

Giving a more direct answer to your question I get my information through philosophical inquiry and through metaphysical revelation (both public and private) brought by non human beings (human souls can't do that without special permission) and through the test of time/history.

So nothing that anyone else could double-check to make sure you aren't just delusional or suffering from a severe confirmation bias? Yeah, that seems like a great way to acquire knowledge that you can trust.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

According to you, the soul lives on after death, so, have you heard from any of your friends or relatives who may have died?
If you have, did they tell you what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God?
Souls after the death of the body are only in heaven, purgatory or hell. They can't contact the living and vice versa.

I'm going to restate a question that I've asked twice now. What is your source of information? Who has given you all this supposed knowledge on the inner workings of the soul? According to you, souls that have been separated from the body (presumably the only souls that can remember being heaven, hell, or purgatory) can't speak with us physical beings to corroborate anything you're saying on the subject. As far as I can tell you have a lot of "answers" but zero proof.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christoper Hitchens

14

Are JW's Getting More Comfortable Discussing Politics?

by freemindfade in

just curious if anyone else has observed a more willingness by witnesses they know to openly discuss politics (out of the context of the "truth")?

i have noticed it within my own microcosms of jws i know.. have you observed this?.

i am sure with this last years political climate it's hard for anyone to resist chiming in.

Saethydd

Well, I can't speak with any knowledge about what is discussed at the congregation after the meeting because I'm currently disfellowshipped, but I know that in my family at home, comments and discussions about politics and President Trump, in particular, are not uncommon.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

The study of soul predates Christianity.
While the soul cannot be reached through the scientific method it's reached through philosophy and is a philosophical subject of study. I think the only "leap of faith" is the soul is immortal or not. If you think the word soul is too much religious you can use the word software. The word soul was originated outside religion.
It can be reached through intuition too. Search your own intuition and you will see.

Short answer, he doesn't have any objective and verifiable evidence. It's all based on how you feel about it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

Humans came to existence by natural laws (evolution).
They developed a very sophisticated mind but they were not conscious (That's why Adam and Eve didn't knew about good and bad). They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.
In a very recent point in history (in Mesopotamia) God elevated human nature by giving an immortal soul to a couple of "bicameral" humans (Adam and Eve). This soul enables humans to have consciousness.
This process of unification between physical and spiritual nature in humans was interrupted by this couple someway somehow.
So the full conscious human nature was broken.
This broken human nature are being repaired in a masterplan since then and will be complete in the Last Judgment.

Okay, so that means we are back to a God that isn't all-knowing and all-powerful. Because if he were those things then he would have been capable of "introducing consciousness" to humankind without screwing it up. Now because this God you envision is in contradiction with the God of the Bible that means your God didn't inspire the Bible, or that your God doesn't care or is incapable of making the Bible accurately portray him. In either case, the Bible can't be trusted to tell you anything about God.

So my question remains: Where do you get your evidence for this God you are envisioning that is clearly not God as he is described in the Bible?

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

Saethydd

I would argue that, as with any similarity, religion is good for cohesion within a group who all believe in exactly the same religion. People are generally going to be more comfortable with people who are more like themselves than people who are completely different. The cohesion is often lost because eventually different factions form in most religions. (Judaism splitting to Christianity for example) This is because human beings have other attributes that fight against the cohesion and conformity found in religion.

Two of those qualities are creativity and curiosity, both of which are lethal to dogma which is a common thread in most religions.

Progress, however, requires a steady balance between the order provided by cohesive conformity, and the freedom that comes with creative curiosity. It seem that religious leaders, typically prefer to be the ones doing all the creative thinking though, which slows down progress tremendously.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

Ah, but "necessary evils" are only necessary in human actions, because humans are not all-powerful.

If humans were all powerful medical procedures wouldn't be needed.

And natural laws are indifferent. So if the natural laws come from God then he isn't all-loving, he is indifferent.

If you want to say that God is either not all-powerful or is indifferent to humans then I'd be willing to consider it, but I would challenge how you acquired your knowledge about such a being.

16

"You are my witnesses says Jehovah"

by NikL in

jw
friends

"you are my witnesses says jehovah".. this is going to show you how poor my knowledge of the bible has been.. i thought there was a scripture that says the quoted phrase (at least in nwt).

i could swear that i heard it for years quoted in talks.. i went to find it this morning and found nothing of the sort.

am i an anomaly or do any of you remember this as well?.

Saethydd

That weird split is happening in a bunch of threads, I think Simon is working on it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

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.

Saethydd

I got this one cofty. Because an all-powerful AND an all-loving creator wouldn't put innocent people in harm's way.

If he's all powerful that means he can save innocents, if he's all-loving that means he's motivated to save innocents. When motive is combined with ability in that regard, then no innocent people would be getting killed.

But they are getting killed. Which means either God can't save all the innocent people, or he's refusing to do it. Making him either ineffectual, or kind of a jerk.

Though, as I have stated, I believe the most probable situation is simply that no deity exists at all.