Posts by Saethydd

12

My letter to the Australian Royal Commission regarding case study #29 Jehovah's Witnesses

by EdenOne in

someone suggested i would address a letter not only to mr. angus stewart, but also to the royal commission as well.

it merges the two subjects on the same letter (inactive status and shunning; two witness rule), and adds some things more that what i said to mr. stewart.

it's a bit long, please bear with me.. --------------------------------------- .

Saethydd

Very powerful letter, I did however notice a few typos so I would recommend having it proofread before you send it off, and wherever possible cite sources (such as the elders handbook). It will appear more reliable as a source of information.

31

I wrote to Mr. Angus Stewart regarding the "inactive" status claims made by the Watchtower at the ARC

by EdenOne in

this is the email i have just sent to mr. stewart angus, who has been conducting the questioning of the jw leaders during the australian royal commission dealing with child abuse cases among the jehovah's witnesses, concerning the claims made that a jehovah witness who wishes to walk away from the organization can simply become inactive and avoid being shunned:.

dear mr. angus stewart,

i have followed with interest the videos of the arc regarding the jehovah's witnesses in australia.

Saethydd

You might also mention the way parents will be threatened with loss of privileges in the congregation (being deleted as an elder or losing pioneer status) if they allow an adult child to continue living with them who has decided they no longer wish t attend meetings.

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

You are talking about scientific falseability about some metaphysical entity.
Well there's a way to test the causation of consciousness.
When we reach the exascale computing we will have, in theory, the same capacity of the brain (this exascale is predicted to be reached between 2025 and 2040).
Combining the exascale computing with the brain simulation in the ongoing Blue Brain Project, we can try to run a virtual brain and see if a consciousness (strong artificial intelligence capable to pass the Turing test) emerges from it.
This would be the ultimate experiment.
I bet a consciousness will not arise. But I'm not sure about the birth of Skynet. Lol

Well, I guess if an AI ever does develop consciousness it would settle the debate, though I'm sure theists would still find a way to argue against it. That is if the AI doesn't wipe us all out.

In the meantime, though, it just doesn't make sense to me to say that the scientific method is unable to explain something which can't even be demonstrated to exist. Maybe the scientific method isn't the problem, maybe the thing in question simply doesn't exist at all, and that is why it can't be studied scientifically.

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

Physical = material + immaterial.
Spiritual is immaterial too but is not physical it's metaphysical.

Okay, so as I said earlier, we have been using different definitions for the word physical. So correct me if I have this wrong. The physical and spiritual world would have to be connected by immaterial means?

Energy is immaterial.

The scientific method can be used to study energy.

Therefore, it might be possible that the scientific method could, at some point in the future, be used to study this immaterial connection between the physical and spiritual/non-physical, if such a connection exists at all.

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

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.
You have no idea what scientific method is. You can cry a river but energy is physical.
My God this is basic science...

I'm using the second definition of physical found here.

Material means made up of matter.

Matter and energy are not the same, the following article by a theoretical physicist discusses that very subject. I'll sum it up, matter (physical objects) have energy, but energy is not a physical object.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Perhaps this is making my argument too semantic, but still, the scientific method CAN be applied even to things that can't be directly observed.

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.