Posts by StrongHaiku

182

The Case for Theism

by FusionTheism in

"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

StrongHaiku

Quoting scientists has as much value to me as quoting the Bible (or Harry Potter books). My atheist position isn't based on what people say (or are interpreted to saying), but on what they can prove. If Stephen Hawking tomorrow said "there is a God!" it would not matter to me one bit. He would still need to provide demonstrable evidence that is not personal revelation or a feeling or guess.

Lately, I have found that the key argument for theism seems to boil down to an the inability to be ok with "we don't know" and instead fill the gap of knowledge with "because...God". "We don't know" followed by "let's find out" seems to be more productive. Not sure how "because God" benefits anyone.

13

HOW MANY WOULD LEAVE?

by disillusioned 2 in

jw
friends

there are a lot of people on this site and others who even though they don't believe anymore still fill the seats at the meetings.. i was just wondering, if they all decided to leave at the same time, how many do you think would leave?

would the numbers drop dramatically?

i would love to see that..

StrongHaiku

I noticed a number of people posting that they are not leaving for fear of losing families and the shunning policy. I absolutely empathize with that feeling and my heart goes out to them, and I do not mean to sound insensitive or sound critical of their decision. But I often wonder what the end-game is here. Are they waiting for some major doctrinal change and/or scandal to walk out? I mean, there has been a trove of doctrine changes (e.g overlapping generations, blood issue) and scandals (e.g. rampant child abuse and harmful policies) and some have left but there are so many continuing to stay in who know this is not the "truth".

Again, I understand the need to stay in because of family but I often wonder what (if anything) would be the "final straw" that would either motivate or give them sufficient justification/motivation to walk out.

47

Cart Witnessing - Thrilling! Productive! Epic! Er.....um, well, not so much.....

by sir82 in

jw
friends

talked with a pioneer recently, she was recounting her first experience with cart witnessing.. she brought the subject up, was going on & on & on & on about how wonderful the experience was, and how great, and how she enjoyed it so much, and it was so wonderful, and oh jehovah's blessing, and on and on and on...... a few questions to her revealed what really happened:.

-- a jw who owns a small restaurant in a strip mall allows jws to set up their cart outside his restaurant.

-- the restaurant is tucked pretty far out of the way, not prominent at all.

StrongHaiku

I'm seriously thinking about buying a cart and filling it up with Scientific American, Discover, National Geographic, etc. and parking it 10 feet away from a JW cart.

65

Now Even JW Men Are Going To Die At The Big A

by OneFingerSalute in

so this weekend there was a part about not following jesus at a distance.

the speaker made a big point of stating that any baptized jw male who was not either appointed ms/elder, or at the very least "reaching out" actively, was in fact following jesus at a distance.

he said that the only way to live through the big a was to follow jesus closely.

StrongHaiku

I often wonder the following:

How exactly are "the meek to inherit the Earth" when they are made to feel like they don't even belong in the Kingdom Hall?

51

Best Argument for Atheism - In your view.

by LAWHFol in

if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.

i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?

if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.

StrongHaiku

Millie210 - I can however, see that religion has played a role in meeting some need in society or else it would have ceased to exist long before now.

You bring up an interesting point and my response below is not aimed at you but at something I have had people bring up all the time...

I used to believe the above as well until I started to examine the components of religion - e.g. fellowship, purpose, good works, stories, happiness, social coherence, morality, comfort, etc. But taken independently, it is clear to see that these things can be gained without the baggage of religion. I think we have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by society and culture that we have come to automatically associate these very human things as inseparable to (almost synonymous with) religion. Perhaps, religion did fill these needs because it pretty much had few (if any) alternatives and because we have been taught so.

One of the biggest objections I have heard from some people to atheism is that they don't see a clear substitute to what religion offers them. I have even had someone tell me that they would continue to be in a religion until atheism (and/or I personally) offered them a replacement for those things. This is not the role of atheism. Atheism is not a world-view and it is not meant as replacement for the things their religion provides. However, a more comparable replacement for those things religions offer may be found in humanism or some other non-religious world-view or philosophy.

And, I am not without compassion. Life and reality can be pretty rough and I can understand why some people would cling to fantasy to escape. But I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things based in reality to contemplate and experience that do not require religion. I think many people have a blindspot to some of these things because their experiences may be limited or lack imagination or have completely bought into the necessity of religion.

From my perspective, religion gives you a disease and then gives you a placebo for a cure. I think we can come up with better ideas and experiences without it.

51

Best Argument for Atheism - In your view.

by LAWHFol in

if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.

i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?

if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.

StrongHaiku

Great answers from other posts especially about the recommendations to get better schooling and knowledge on logic, critical thinking, etc. This, arguably, is one of the key reasons the GB do not encourage (often discourage) higher-education. Here is another way to think about the position the atheist is taking:

In the US criminal justice system, a person is either declared "Guilty or Not Guilty". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The jurors hear the prosecution's evidence and go away and bring back a "guilty" or "not guilty" decision. They are in fact voting on a two-pronged binary question - i.e. is the person guilty or not guilty. If the jurors come back with "guilty" it means that the prosecution met the "burden of proof". If the prosecution does not meet the "burden of proof", the person is declared "not guilty". However, and this is the important part, the jury is not voting on whether the person is "guilty" or "innocent". "Not guilty" is not the same a "innocent". Even if the person may have indeed committed the crime, all the jury can say with a "Not Guilty" vote is that the prosecution did not meet "the burden of proof".

So, if you wanted to use this as an analogy to the proposition "There is a God(s)":

- the theist is voting "Guilty" (the prosecution has met the burden of proof and to them "There is a God(s)")

- the atheist is saying "Not Guilty" (the prosecution has not met the burden of proof). However, this does not mean the same as "Innocent" ("There is no God(s)").

On a side note, this also shows why putting the "burden of proof" on the person making the claim is beneficial. In this legal system the "burden of proof" is on the prosecution (the State). If the burden of proof was on you (i.e. to prove yourself not-guilty) you could potentially be charged with all sorts of trivial/"made up" charges every day without good evidence (e.g. faith), be arrested every day, and spend all of your resources defending yourself, every day for the rest of your life. By making the prosecution have the burden of proof, it means that the State needs to use up their resources first before dragging you into the issue. And, the cost the State incurs become an incentive to decrease prosecutorial misconduct.

Likewise, I need not clutter up my brain and tax my resources on addressing every claim (e.g. God, fairies, conspiracy theories, chupacabra, etc.) until good evidence has been provided. I let the person making the claim spend their resources. It is not my job to make somebody else's case.

51

Best Argument for Atheism - In your view.

by LAWHFol in

if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.

i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?

if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.

StrongHaiku

Millie210 - Why does the burden of proof automatically rest on the side of the theist?

First of all, thank you for you kind words. I get the above question all of the time. There are a number of great books and articles on logic and epistemology that can provide better and more detailed answers that I can, but here are some ways to think about it and get you started:

When debating an idea or issue, the burden of proof rests on the party making the positive claim. This is a basic tenet of various schools of philosophy, logic, epistemology, etc. One of the reasons for this approach is that it helps deal with possible logical fallacies (e.g. Argument from Ignorance). Another reason, is that it is more practical than the reverse. Imagine how many years and resources and money you would have to spend trying to "disprove" every claim that is made (e.g. God, fairies, Loch Ness monster, etc.). You could chase your tail forever. Instead, it is more logically consistent and useful to have the person "adding something into the mix" (or making the claim) to provide evidence of their proposition before it is accepted.

On a side note, most people are perfectly happy to have the burden of proof on the person who makes the claim in just about every area in life except when it comes to God. For example, if I told you that I have a miracle cure for some disease and all you have to do is give me all your cash, would you ask for evidence to prove it or would you spend your time and effort trying to prove me wrong? We do this every day. We put the burden of proof on the person making the claim, except when it comes to our particular pet beliefs and especially when they deal with God. Weird, right?

Lastly, this approach is used successfully in a number of areas include the legal system, the scientific method, etc.

51

Best Argument for Atheism - In your view.

by LAWHFol in

if crisis of conscience is one of the top watchtower doctrine killers, what is the coc of theism?.

i'd like to read a book, or other material that does the best job logically arguing for atheism.. i've not read any darwin, however it is my assumption that his focus is primarily on evolution, is this correct?

if you were to recommend one book or a few pieces of reading material, which do the best job of defending atheism, what would they be?.

StrongHaiku

Best argument for atheism?

This is a good question. I hope this can help clarify:

The reason I am an atheist is because I have not been provided good evidence of the theist's proposition that "God(s) exist". The burden of proof is on the theist. This would also be true if the person said they believed in UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, Big Foot, The Illuminati, etc. The burden is not on me to disprove their claims, but for the believer in the claims to prove their position. The proof of God's existence by most theists is typically faith, personal revelation, a holy book, or they point to the Universe and say "Oh, how complex...surely there was a creator", and so on. If this is not sufficient for you, you take the default position which is atheism. Therefore, the question could be reworded as "Best argument for theism?" and, if there isn't a good argument for theism, the default position is atheism.

Also, it is good to try not to mix evolution (and the Theory of Evolution), the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis, and other ideas into the mix. These are scientific explanations of natural phenomenon and are not positions for or against the proposition "There is a God(s)". The proposition that "there is a God(s)" needs to stand on its own merit (or lack thereof).

For example, the Big Bang theory is the current best scientific explanation of how the Universe came about from a high-density state then expanded. Lots of great experiments that go farther and father in time. We don't have all the answers yet and we may never have them. But the default position on these gaps of knowledge would be "We don't know" (and, maybe, "let's keep trying to find out") and not "Therefore...God(s)".

Hope this helps.

53

Apost8News: "Return to Jehovah" Official Literature Release Video - 2015 Convention Lowlight

by cappytan in

again, thanks to wifibandit and pixel for their work behind the scenes.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwzviu3jfko.

StrongHaiku

So, the GB sat down, looked at their numbers and complaints, and decided that this strategy (Operation: "Kill More Trees")...

1. ...would allow them to get access to cash and resources from people who have been away for a while. In other words, they may see "the sheep" that return as a desperately needed new source of revenue.

2. ...would provide a gesture to satisfy some complaints from the JWs and other organizations on the shunning policy.

Am I my being too cynical?

53

Apost8News: "Return to Jehovah" Official Literature Release Video - 2015 Convention Lowlight

by cappytan in

again, thanks to wifibandit and pixel for their work behind the scenes.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwzviu3jfko.

StrongHaiku

A little bit after 7:10 into the broadcast it begins to sound like a weird diatribe regarding the "End of the System" and a creepy attempt at humor regarding his "heavenly hope".

AM III: "We just don't know..." (He said it several times)

With all due respect, then why in the world would we listen to you or take you seriously?