interesting story i have a friend who is df but his wife still faithfully goes to meetings.
there's a single brother in the cong that is always flirting with his wife.
well at a recent meeting my df friend decided to show up to check this brother out.
Vidiot - These days, The TATT tends to filter us decent guys out.
BLASPHEMY! It's TTATT, not TATT. The Truth about the Truth. The prophets of ex-JWism shall rebuke you.
By the way, this guy was just outright disrespectful. You don't go after someone's wife (or husband) unless they're separated. And you don't treat disfellowshipped people as if they were dead and their marriage invalid.
so using some amazing features of excel and the starting data here, i managed to get the average, the maximum, and the minimum percentage of the inhabited landmass of the earth where jehovah's witnesses have been either active (reported) or "not banned".the average is 66.10%!!
that means that for 90 years, ever since there is data, 1/3 of the world's area has not been preached in or been fully able to preach in!the minimum occurred in 1943, when only 26.77% of the world's inhabited area made a full yearly report and/or wasn't banned.the maximum occurred in 1991 because the yearbook said that the ussr was included.
the maximum was 82.47%.
82.47%? That's amazing.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John_Mann - Cofty
Why humans evolved to perceive evil at all?
We are the only specie to perceive evil, justice, mortality, etc.
BTW no other species have consciousness at all..
Nope. We are not the only species to perceive evil, justice, and morality. Other species certainly do have codes of conduct as well. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce is a good book to read on the topic. Marc Bekoff is a Professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, and Jessica Pierce is a bioethicist and a philosopher.
The book is only 200 pages long, but it contains a lot of information; for instance, it cites experiments done by other scientists, so you can look those up as well.
When it comes to consciousness, it still remains one of the great mysteries of science. We don't know what it is and what causes it, but in the Middle Ages, we also didn't know that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Sooner or later, we will find out. The unknown is not a reason to believe in a divine entity.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Xanthippe - Confucius and others introduced the Golden Rule (treat others as you would be treated) at around the same time.
Actually, the Golden Rule goes waaaaay back—even before Confucius.
The Eloquent Peasant from Ancient Egypt is the first story to ever record this rule. The story dates back to ca. 19th century BCE (Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.) That's around 14 centuries before Confucius. You can find this story here. The rule appears on page 174: "This is the precept: Do to the doer to make him do."
There's also a papyrus from the Late Period of Egypt, which contains a similar rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do it to another." The papyrus is damaged, so we don't have all of the text, but there's enough to see the rule itself. You can find the translation on page 95 of this document.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
When I was watching Sam Harris's debate with William Craig, there was one major problem I had with Craig's claim. If we can have objective morality only because of God, why is it that every single religion and every single denomination within disagree with each other on what God's morality is?
And another point that I have raised on other websites is the same you mention. These religious people who are so eager to claim that God is the epitome of morality often don't even notice that they are justifying their own moral positions by citing verses from their holy books post hoc. Their morality is therefore based on what the society deems appropriate.
listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.
i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.
hope some of you get a chance to listen.
bohm - So you are claiming that mis-gendering is now a hate crime in canada?
If I understand the law correctly, it's not that it is, but that it could be.
C-16 Bill replaced Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code with the following:
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor, [emphasis added]
(The bill added the words "gender identity or expression.") This means, in my view, that if an offence is motivated by hatred based on gender identity or expression, then it is a hate crime. The problem with this law is that it doesn't specify anything. So is mis-gendering a hate crime? It could be.
Edit: But please do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know much about the law. I can hardly even say that I know anything.
maybe it's a british thing, but we tend to be polite.
too polite.. even if someone is inconsiderate, we apologize as though we did something wrong.. prime offenders?
people in supermarkets, specifically costco.. they have nice wide isles and yet somehow, for some reason, some idiot will find a way to put their trolley sideways and keep a hand on it while reaching for something, thus blocking the entire isle.. or another favorite ... you're going through the entrance and someone just stops, maybe to answer their phone.. how about you wait in a queue at a checkout for ages and when it's their turn, then they start looking for their purse.. how many times have you thought "idiot" or muttered under your breath?.
Until Simon came around and ruined our reputation by telling a guy to move aside his shopping cart.
Bad Simon. We are so sorry. This is not us. We Canadians are always nice. Simon is the black sheep.
We are so so sorry for his extremism.
let's start by saying that slavery is of course a terrible thing, one of the worst crimes imaginable, and that "slavery" rarely implies good treatment, anything noble or defensible.
nowadays, even god doesn't escape judgement from our enlightened views with passages about slavery in the bible usually glossed over because they are shameful.. but not all slavery was equal.. because of the media, movie industry, racial tensions in the us regularly shown on the news and our taught history, i think most people's knowledge and idea of slavery is that of the north atlantic slave trade where white people took africans to work in cotton fields.
this idea is probably also re-enforced because the largest group of descendents of slaves we see today are african americans (usually in the us or places they subsequently migrated to).. but it's incomplete.. it's only when you look into it more that you discover that there was much more to the slave trade than that, otherwise it would have been just called "the slave trade" and not "the north atlantic slave trade".. some 12.5 million slaves were taken from africa to the us with just under 11 million surviving the trip so it obviously took a terrible toll immediately, even before any maltreatment once they landed in the americas where conditions and treatment were truly awful.
I also live in Canada, so I can comment on that as well.
In the city I live (the capital—Ottawa), there doesn't seem to be any race issues. As far as I have seen, black people are treated the same. There may be some unnecessary sensitivity towards racism, which once or twice has gotten me into trouble simply because I was misunderstood, but overall, it's all good as far as I can see.
However, as Simon has already mentioned, there is another type of racism here. Native Americans have additional rights and privileges. I've never complained about that, but in reality, I think it'd be much better if the privileges they get (such as post-secondary education funding) went to people who actually need them because of their financial situation, not because of their race.
Edit: When it comes to BLM, yeah, we don't have that. Not like the US. But some people are trying to start a fire for whatever reason...
i note the recent post that quoted 1 timothy 2:11-12 and colossians 1:23 which place women at a level that is lower to men.
the poster accused paul of this mysoginy, but that is not correct.. 1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus, colossians, ephesians and hebrews were written after paul's death.. paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles.
he wrote that in god's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in god's sight.. doug.
LisaRose - What difference does it make who wrote those passages? It's still in the bible, allowed to be in the bible by God, if you believe the bible is inspired. Those words have been used for centuries to dominate and subjugate women, all in the name of God, and are still being used to this day by backwards religions like the JWs.
Right. To those of us who study the NT only from the historical perspective it's of great importance. (It's funny, but there are actually atheists who are interested in early Christianity for purely historical reasons. You'd think only Christians would be interested in these things, huh...) Nonetheless, whenever I debate Christians on these topics, I definitely use those misogynistic passages (and otherwise primitive verses) to criticise the allegedly divinely inspired Bible. It's only when I'm doing my historical studies that it becomes significant that Paul wasn't a misogynist. It's also fascinating because of how later Christians argued the role of women in Christianity. The "feminist" side used Paul's writings as much as the misogynistic side did. It's quite fascinating if one likes history.
But anyway, I agree with you that it's rather inconsequential when it comes to whether the Bible is divinely inspired.
i note the recent post that quoted 1 timothy 2:11-12 and colossians 1:23 which place women at a level that is lower to men.
the poster accused paul of this mysoginy, but that is not correct.. 1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus, colossians, ephesians and hebrews were written after paul's death.. paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles.
he wrote that in god's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in god's sight.. doug.
waton, what are you saying exactly? That women should be below men because of biology, and because it has served the human race "well"?
How do you know how it would have served the human race if women were equal to men from the very beginning? You don't know, so I don't think you can claim that the role of women has served us "well."
