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.
Atheism is a metaphysical claim.
You're confusing two different things. Asserting that deities don't exist is a metaphysical claim. Stating that 'I don't believe in deities because there's no compelling evidence to support it' isn't a metaphysical claim.
Atheism is a position regarding lack of belief, not an assertion about the existence of deities.
this week all congregations in australia have been instructed to make the following announcement:.
if a member of the congregation would like a copy of the child safeguarding policy of jehovah’s witnesses in australia, please see the coordinator of the body of elders or the secretary.. .
childsafeguardingpolicy-eau.pdf.
Half-hearted effort.
it should be available so that anyone could ANONYMOUSLY read it. Make it a bound item at the KH's library, or downloadable from the website, ffs. They are still controlling and intimidating the members if they have to get through the Coordinator or the Secretary.
well, i went back to the area of my old congregation yesterday.
my daughter's best friend amanda was getting married, and despite my trepidation, amanda had begged me to show up and to dance a dance with her.
my trepidation was twofold; first, my ex-wife was going to be there, and after our messy divorce only six months ago, i had no desire to be anywhere where she was.
When I was inactive, I was going to the shopping mall to meet my wife and son who were having lunch with my mother-in-law and a couple of JW's (my wife was still in). When I was turning the corner I ran into my father-in-law. I greeted him, extended my hand, and he turned his face, ignored me and kept walking. I was floored. I then met my family and had lunch with them and the other JW's, who were visibly uncomfortable with me being there. That was an odd day.
Months later, my father-in-law apologized and said he had done that because he had heard that I had been disfellowshipped (duhhh ... he could have asked me or his daughter, or his wife, right?)
does the rank and file or the elders view us as disassociated or disfellowshipped or simply "weak" or possibly a "prodigal son" type?.
According to the WT, as per Ezekiel 33:6, those who become inactive in the ministry shall perish at Armageddon, because they will be bloodguilty for the death of the wicked whom they failed to warn.
The inactive are de facto considered bad examples, cowards, materialistic-minded people, worldly , weaklings, a 'bad company that spoils useful habits' for the other publishers in the congregation. Last year's RC lambasted the inactive and suggested that the publishers should avoid close association with them, even if they are family members.
Especially those who are perceived as critics of the Organization and the GB will be treated with nearly as much avoidance and contempt as a disfellowshipped / disassociated person.
all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
exhibit list.
joint statement of o'brien and spinks.
RO is as much 'gay, therefore, non-JW' as I am Dolly Parton.
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.
Oblivion can only be concluded starting from Atheism and Scientism.
Wrong. Oblivion is a logical deduction: If such a thing as a soul exists, and nothingness is the condition of the soul before its creation, then, in accordance with the Bible, when the soul ceases to exist (and there are plenty of Bible passages that claim that the soul can indeed cease to exist, much more in fact that passages that say that the soul is inherently immortal; in fact St. Paul asserts that the soul can become immortal by divine grace, thus proving that the soul isn't created immortal by default), it becomes nothingness - oblivion. My position doesn't stem from atheism (I'm not atheist) nor Scientism (I don't follow that). There is observable evidence that doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is the most reliable way of collecting and interpreting evidence, but it's not the only one, of course. 99% of our daily decisions aren't based on the scientific method.
Using only the first premise of St. Anselm's ontological argument we can reach the Christian concept of God.
No we don't, and I've shown you why not. We can reach a theoretical concept of a god, but certainly not the Christian god. You're in denial.
I refuted your concept of God pointing your defined being must be unstable (bound by nothing). Stability is greater than instability. Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think this statement is a personal preference?
In accordance with St. Anselm's axiom, I thought of a god that is bound by nothing. That's not the Christian god, who, according to your belief, is bound by his nature and by the impossibility of be evil or do evil. My logic is impeccable. Yours is a red herring.
Second, it's YOUR conclusion that a god bound by nothing must necessarily be unstable. It's a non-sequitur. Why would such god be "unstable"? I can think of a god that has some criteria, even a predictable criteria, on how he choses to act within a spectrum of extremely good to extremely evil. It follows, then that I don't agree that such god would be unstable. Let's say such good would choose to consistently be evil. That wouldn't be "unstable", would it? The god that I'm thinking of can chose to be consistently good, or consistently bad. He can also choose when, and how and where to be such. That makes him a greater god than one that is bound by whatever you can think of.
I'm not saying such god exists; I don't know. I see no evidence of it. But I'm merely pointing out that such god is much more consistent with the observable reality of this world, where good and evil co-exist, that the purported god of Christianity. What I do know, is that mere logic can defeat the claim that St. Anselm's axioms of any help to prove the existence of the christian god.
JM, I'm not here to persuade you to abandon your faith in the god you have crafted for yourself (or that someone else crafted and you accepted it so); if it gives meaning and purpose to your life, that's absolutely fine, just as long as you don't impose your worldview on others. I'm just pointing out that the logic behind it is flawed and detached from the reality that can be observed universally. And thus ends my participation on this three.
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.
Oblivion is a much more rational (i.e. consistent with the observable evidence) condition than hell (nihil). A god of love wouldn't create souls to subject them afterwords to a perpetual state of nihil when oblivion is available as a choice. Again, your belief isn't consistent with a god of love.
And you still haven't provided an satisfactory, logical answer to the fact that St. Anselm's axiom logically disproves the god of christianity that cannot do evil. You have just stated your personal preferences as to which qualities are "greater".
shocking video from jw.org shows the "new light" that there was no slave class handing out spiritual food for 1900 years!!
so the original governing body became apostate and fell apart.
charles russell re-started the faithful slave even though the watchtower admits he learned everything he ever knew from the "second adventists".
Kinda shocking statement, but I think he was going ahead of the official doctrine. Or going back to the days of Rutherford ....
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.
Perry, parroting pseudo-science from a website such as AmericanVision.org, with a "Dr. Joel McDurmon" quoting from an article from the notorious UK's Daily Mail that misrepresents by miles a serious study paper “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” within Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, won't help you in any way.
From his facebook page: Joel McDurmon, is the author of multiple books and hundreds of articles, and regularly serves as a lecturer and preacher.
You, like many theists, prefer "alternative facts" - kinda reminds me Trump administration. Dishonest, to say the least, more than pathethic or willfully ignorant.
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.
I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.
Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.
In case you didn't notice, I wasn't challenging the logic of St. Anselm's axiom; I can even agree with its logic. What I said, and you wholly ignored it, is that it actually proves that the god of christianity is no god. Why? Because I can think of a being greater than the god of Christianity. Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature. Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria, thus making the god of christianity no god at all.
You can wiggle as you want, argueing about what qualities are "greater" - they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain? Again, you are crafting a god according to your wishes. Nothing new, mankind has been doing it for millenia. Your own logic defeats your reasoning.
Actually it would make much more sense if god was capable of evil. That would make much more sense with the world we live in.
