If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Jehovah's Witnesses seek protection from outspoken views of "the new atheists." Relax guys, it's not like they're knocking on your door trying to hand out "learn to be godless" pamphlets   (blog.newhumanist.org.uk) divider line 537
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13263 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2010 at 5:06 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-09-07 07:27:06 PM
alzahra: "The article points out that both sets of beliefs (theist and atheist) require a certain leap of faith, neither side can be 'proven' (yet?)."

I hear this all the time, and I disagree. Christians play a shell game with gods while arguing, switching between their particular god and a very vague, general deistic god as the need arises. When it comes to proof/disproof, they use the deistic god for which there genuinely can't be any. But their specific god is described in the Bible in great detail along with associated feats. The quantity of these claims that is testable has increased over time as science has increased in scope and reliability. Every time a Biblical claim about the natural world has been tested, it has been disproven. In the period when each successive controversy took place, fundamentalists refused to budge and moderates sang their own praises for being enlightened enough to rationalize new scientific findings into their theology. None, it seems, recognized the pattern, since named the "retreat from copernicus".

It's continued through the ages, from the plurality of worlds to the structure of the heavens, to the nature of disease to the mechanisms of life, to the diversity of life, to the origins of life, to the origins of Earth, to the nature of consciousness and finally to the origins of the universe. The church has been on the wrong side of every question and continues to be, failing to recognize the pattern.

If you have an absolutist standard of disproof, none of this can prove, for you, that God doesn't exist. But nothing can. It's an absolutist standard, after all. If you employ the probabilistic standard of proof and disproof (as science does) while you needn't consider any one of these losses to be a disproof of the Christian God, all of them considered as a whole should incline you strongly against that notion.
 
2010-09-07 07:27:59 PM
I love reading all this stuff people come up with for JWs.

/married to one
//getting a kick
 
2010-09-07 07:30:00 PM
Little known fact: During his twenties Jesus was an atheist. He just couldn't believe he was the son of God. Then he started hearing voices. If he lived in this day and age, he'd be on meds and quite happy with his girlfriend. I hear this delusion runs in the family.
 
2010-09-07 07:31:29 PM
the_red_spectacle: Little known fact: During his twenties Jesus was an atheist. He just couldn't believe he was the son of God. Then he started hearing voices. If he lived in this day and age, he'd be on meds and quite happy with his girlfriend. I hear this delusion runs in the family.

He tell you this himself?
 
2010-09-07 07:32:20 PM
wippit: I love reading all this stuff people come up with for JWs.

/married to one
//getting a kick


I think my Girl Scout cookies idea was a good one, feel free to pass along to your spouse :P
 
2010-09-07 07:33:42 PM
HeartBurnKid: pacochu: I had a couple Jeebus peeps come to the door a few weeks ago. One of them asked about the MGB in the garage. He said he was a car guy, then asked me who made them. I probably should have mentioned that the ignition system is powered by Lucas, The Prince of Darkness. I could have gotten a free exorcism or something for it.

I believe the correct answer is:

Jesus built my car
It's a love affair
Mainly Jesus and my hotrod.


Haikus are 5-7-5, dude.
 
2010-09-07 07:35:21 PM
wippit: I love reading all this stuff people come up with for JWs.

/married to one
//getting a kick


What did she get you for Christmas?
 
2010-09-07 07:39:03 PM
Zamboro: Tofino: "I call the ranting, spittle emitting ones "evangelical athiests".

What Christians think a spittle soaked rant looks like:



Video


Exactly. There is absolutely no argument against the existence of God, no matter how calmly and professionally delivered, that Christians will not respond to with "THAT GUY IS A FROTHING JERK AND AN INTOLERANT CHILDISH MEANIE WHO CONDESCENDS TO ANYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK THE SAME WAY."
 
2010-09-07 07:39:26 PM
NicoFinn: Now, if they actually do make it into my building and come to my door, I'm going to answer the door naked and insist they come in.

The most fun I ever had with JWs was the time I answered the door naked using my then girlfriend's menstrual blood as war paint, smeared on my face and chest. I don't think they uttered a single word to me when I opened the door.
 
2010-09-07 07:40:13 PM
madmann: Jesus built my car
It's a love affair
Mainly Jesus and my hotrod.

Haikus are 5-7-5, dude.


Yeah, fark it.
 
2010-09-07 07:42:57 PM
whatshisname: wippit: I love reading all this stuff people come up with for JWs.

/married to one
//getting a kick

What did she get you for Christmas?


Meh, I don't bother to celebrate. Saves money.
She already spoils me throughout the year buying me stuff.
 
2010-09-07 07:49:43 PM
madmann: HeartBurnKid: pacochu: I had a couple Jeebus peeps come to the door a few weeks ago. One of them asked about the MGB in the garage. He said he was a car guy, then asked me who made them. I probably should have mentioned that the ignition system is powered by Lucas, The Prince of Darkness. I could have gotten a free exorcism or something for it.

I believe the correct answer is:

Jesus built my car
It's a love affair
Mainly Jesus and my hotrod.

Haikus are 5-7-5, dude.


Well, ding-a-ling-dang my dang-a-long ding-dong.
 
2010-09-07 07:51:46 PM
Zamboro: alzahra: "I wouldn't try to make a compelling point about why I'm a Muslim by saying 'It's the only thing that makes sense and anyone who believes otherwise is a deluded twat', but that's just me."

Dawkins, Harris and Dennett have never said anything comparable to that.


Dawkins, at least, owes quite a bit of his income to saying things comparable to this. Or have you forgotten The God Delusion?
 
2010-09-07 07:54:35 PM
HeartBurnKid: madmann: HeartBurnKid: pacochu: I had a couple Jeebus peeps come to the door a few weeks ago. One of them asked about the MGB in the garage. He said he was a car guy, then asked me who made them. I probably should have mentioned that the ignition system is powered by Lucas, The Prince of Darkness. I could have gotten a free exorcism or something for it.

I believe the correct answer is:

Jesus built my car
It's a love affair
Mainly Jesus and my hotrod.

Haikus are 5-7-5, dude.

Well, ding-a-ling-dang my dang-a-long ding-dong.


Jeebus built your hotrod?
 
2010-09-07 07:55:34 PM
we_hates: ample evidence that the concept is purely a creation of the human imagination.

A claim as large as that should, logically, be followed by some evidence.
 
2010-09-07 07:55:43 PM
whatshisname: Torok: I would find it silly to put up a billboard that states that I do not believe in unicorns.

People aren't coming door to door trying to convert you to believe in unicorns and they don't want to teach unicornism in science class, do they?

Sometimes people with imaginary friends need to be told to STFU.



You beat me to it. If belief in unicorns were widespread, commonly viewed as inherently moral, a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to be electable, pushed by the courts (12 step programs), conditioned people towards magical thinking and used to justify curtailing the rights of other citizens... then it wouldn't be so silly to want to put that billboard up, now would it?
 
2010-09-07 08:00:54 PM
Some people really need to learn the difference between atheism and anti-theism.
 
2010-09-07 08:01:04 PM
Millenium: "Dawkins, at least, owes quite a bit of his income to saying things comparable to this. Or have you forgotten The God Delusion?"

I haven't. Show me any place in the God Delusion where he disparages believers with such severity and I will concede.
 
2010-09-07 08:01:08 PM
GilRuiz1: Well, in "The Amoral Manifesto," this atheist philosophy professor says

You bolded the wrong part. Allow me to correct that.

Leeds: You'd probably be surprised at how many people don't understand that ethics and morality have no more to do with magic and religion than skin color has to do with age...

But then, maybe you wouldn't be.
 
2010-09-07 08:02:58 PM
we_hates: No. There's no evidence of god - none whatsoever. There's a lot of evidence that the concept is a creation of human fancy. So it doesn't take a leap of faith for me to say there's no god. If it is, it's only as much of a leap as saying leprechauns aren't real, or the tooth fairy. That's a much much much smaller degree of faith than is required to believe in a religion.

So... ?
 
2010-09-07 08:03:34 PM
bigdanc: "A claim as large as that should, logically, be followed by some evidence."

The temporal lobes and God
God on the Brain
The God Part of the Brain
Wiki article on neurotheology
 
2010-09-07 08:05:42 PM
Zamboro: Well no, we intend to express our views just as anyone else does. Why should we not have that right?

Sure you do. But when you cross the line to being an irrational hate pandering propagandist then people equally have the right to call you a intolerant bigot who turns his own philosophical beliefs into fundamentalist religious dogma just like any other religious fundamentalist.

And, as Paul Kurtz specifically pointed out in rewriting the secular humanist manifesto this year, and Phil Plait noted last month, Rebecca Watson and numerous others have spoken out explaining to you "don't be a dick".
 
2010-09-07 08:07:20 PM
ninjakirby: GilRuiz1: Well, in "The Amoral Manifesto," this atheist philosophy professor says

You bolded the wrong part. Allow me to correct that.

Leeds: You'd probably be surprised at how many people don't understand that ethics and morality have no more to do with magic and religion than skin color has to do with age...

But then, maybe you wouldn't be.



I know the individual words that you typed, but assembled in the sequence you've utilized, their meaning eludes me.

Try again, please? Perhaps with smaller, simpler words?

/Remember, I'm a theist.
 
2010-09-07 08:07:40 PM
thnksqrd: A righteous god would use a BAKER'S dozen

img.photobucket.com
 
2010-09-07 08:08:43 PM
kerpal32: Sure you do. But when you cross the line to being an irrational hate pandering propagandist then people equally have the right to call you a intolerant bigot who turns his own philosophical beliefs into fundamentalist religious dogma just like any other religious fundamentalist.

How about playing nice until someone does that?

Just this once.
 
2010-09-07 08:09:11 PM
Meet the new atheist.... same as the old atheist


/YEEEAAAAHHHH...
 
2010-09-07 08:10:46 PM
corronchilejano: "So... ?"

So the Christian god was originally defined in such a way that his existence wasn't possible to test for at the time, but as that changed, so did the definition. Of course theories change over time too, but they don't merely change in content to evade disproof the way theology does, each new revision of a theory is put to the test to ensure that it more accurately reflects reality.

There's been a clear pattern of disproofs followed by evasions throughout the history of the church. Step by step they've retreated from their original claims as science has become mature and capable enough to discredit them. Christians have endless rationalizations for this, ranging from 'creative reinterpretation' (i.e. retconning) to attempts to undermine the credibility of science, but the record is what it is.
 
2010-09-07 08:12:39 PM
NEDM:
You have to ask yourself though: What exactly is life? How does one actually perceive the world around them, and make memories?

To try to answer that question involves going down a path that usually leaves your mind blown for days.


I seem to keep my memories in a wetware-based hard disk system that has file recall problems.

/what did I eat yesterday?
//honestly, no idea at all
 
2010-09-07 08:13:20 PM
GilRuiz1: I know the individual words that you typed, but assembled in the sequence you've utilized, their meaning eludes me.

That is probably because you tend not to think about what you mean when you post.
 
2010-09-07 08:14:12 PM
Zamboro: Of course theories change over time too, but they don't merely change in content to evade disproof the way theology does, each new revision of a theory is put to the test to ensure that it more accurately reflects reality.


"It's okay when we do it."

So I've heard.
 
2010-09-07 08:14:13 PM
Zamboro: bigdanc: "A claim as large as that should, logically, be followed by some evidence."

The temporal lobes and God
God on the Brain
The God Part of the Brain
Wiki article on neurotheology


Evidence, not a list of videos and books I can examine if I want to further my education and understanding of neurology.
 
2010-09-07 08:14:29 PM
Zamboro: This is a fair and accurate characterization with the sole exception that most atheists consider themselves technically agnostic. Their atheistic conclusion is probabilistic, rather than absolute.

So this is your latest tack huh? Well, happy sailing skipper. You've realized you cannot falsify the argument from other side, so now you're agnostic, but you'll just mock, ridicule, and bore anyone who doesn't agree with you about atheism to death huh?

You do realize most theists (including deists) are actually agnostic theists right? That's why it's called faith (belief)...... guess not....

/btw -- theistic probability is the atheist equivalent of intelligent design as science, you do realize this right?

apparently not. maybe you should ask any mathematicians instead of biologists.
 
2010-09-07 08:15:35 PM
www.giftag.com

By the way, anyone know if this is any good? I've been pondering buying it for a while now.
 
2010-09-07 08:16:22 PM
GilRuiz1: "It's okay when we do it."

So I've heard.


Two.
 
2010-09-07 08:18:07 PM
stewmadness 2010-09-07 05:35:46 PM


In fairness, you would technically be trying to get them to believe in nothing.
At least they are trying to get you to believe in something.


The logic of this statement completely escapes me.

Why should I want to believe in "something" that claims
to care about me and claims to love me, but would send
me to a torture chamber after I die if I don't beleve
in exactly what the "something" TELLS me to believe in?

No thanks, I've been on that road, and I'd rather believe
in something like a six pack of Carlsberg beer.
 
2010-09-07 08:18:15 PM
ninjakirby: That is probably because you tend not to think about what you mean when you post.

I get ya.

i224.photobucket.com
 
2010-09-07 08:20:47 PM
bigdanc: Evidence, not a list of videos and books I can examine if I want to further my education and understanding of neurology.

images2.fanpop.com
That is a trap. I offer my explanation, you'll play the man of credentials and say I'm not a neurologist; I ask you to review videos by neurologists and you'll play busy, requesting I summarize. I have no stomach for games.
 
2010-09-07 08:21:34 PM
Infinite Monkey: kerpal32: Sure you do. But when you cross the line to being an irrational hate pandering propagandist then people equally have the right to call you a intolerant bigot who turns his own philosophical beliefs into fundamentalist religious dogma just like any other religious fundamentalist.

How about playing nice until someone does that?

Just this once.


ummm when the guy starts out the thread wrapping himself in some false sense of moral imperative, and playing the ؟Dawkins never called anyone's beliefs a virus or ever used hate pandering rhetoric about religion or theism؟ game (irony quotes btw for FloydA) and other similar wharrgarble, I'm sorry, but I just can't respect the little fanatical fundie bastard.

But I'm sure (well probabilistically certain) that you'll turn a blind eye and deaf ear to it like you always do.
 
2010-09-07 08:21:40 PM
Santas90si: I dont let the bastards n my house.

what about just the porch? is that ok?
 
2010-09-07 08:25:07 PM
Ringshadow:

cove: I am a Strange Loop

By the way, anyone know if this is any good?


Haven't read it yet. But Gödel, Escher, Bach is good.
 
2010-09-07 08:26:36 PM
ninjakirby: bigdanc: Evidence, not a list of videos and books I can examine if I want to further my education and understanding of neurology.

That is a trap. I offer my explanation, you'll play the man of credentials and say I'm not a neurologist; I ask you to review videos by neurologists and you'll play busy, requesting I summarize. I have no stomach for games.



Oh, farking bravo! Nicely done! You're the winner of the internets today, ninjakirby.
 
2010-09-07 08:26:59 PM
You must kiss Hanks ass, or get out of town.
 
2010-09-07 08:27:10 PM
Kittypie070: Why should I want to believe in "something" that claims
to care about me and claims to love me, but would send
me to a torture chamber after I die if I don't beleve
in exactly what the "something" TELLS me to believe in?


ummmmm I'm pretty sure (well probabilistically certain) that you're confusing religion with theism.

Or at least some twisted bastardization of religion.
 
2010-09-07 08:28:21 PM
Zamboro: So the Christian god was originally defined in such a way that his existence wasn't possible to test for at the time, but as that changed, so did the definition. Of course theories change over time too, but they don't merely change in content to evade disproof the way theology does, each new revision of a theory is put to the test to ensure that it more accurately reflects reality.

There's been a clear pattern of disproofs followed by evasions throughout the history of the church. Step by step they've retreated from their original claims as science has become mature and capable enough to discredit them. Christians have endless rationalizations for this, ranging from 'creative reinterpretation' (i.e. retconning) to attempts to undermine the credibility of science, but the record is what it is.


True. Our own definition of what God is or any of religion may or may not be true changes with history too. The church, like any organization, clings like a dying man to superstitions of old, but if reverence to the old pope against hatred for the new one says anything at all, it's that a philosphy of peace and love seems more important than the righteous punishment in fire those who do not believe apparently get after their existence.

In the end, if god exists or not is something that, apparently, time will tell, in ANY case.

/unless we missile ourselves into extinction and he DOESN'T exist. Too bad nobody would be there to laugh at the irony.
 
2010-09-07 08:30:45 PM
alzahra: There's no 'proof' either way. So [...] you are taking a leap of faith, b/c there's no proof of that.

A well-aimed shot is the same thing as a shot in the dark because you aren't 100% certain you'll hit your mark either way. Best explanations, probabilities, reasonableness... these words are for pussies. There is only certainty and faith in my world. Black and white is how I live.
 
2010-09-07 08:34:45 PM
Zamboro: and a very vague, general deistic god as the need arises.

stop confusing religion with theism for 5 minutes. damn man.

You may want to look at the same circular reasoning of atheism under the anthropic principle (example: the participatory anthropic principle). You may also want to understand the self refuting arguments and infinite regress that are caused by arguments under scientism and foundantionalism. Or the closed reasoning you create under coherentism that blindly rejects any philosophical view that conflicts with your own.

I've explained this to you before, where you end up with existence as the default state for reality "because" you have a belief it must be natural. Insisting otherwise is atheist fundamentalism.

Whether you can accept it or not, you merely have a philosophical belief in metaphysical naturalism.
 
2010-09-07 08:36:02 PM
ninjakirby: you'll play the man of credentials and say I'm not a neurologist; I ask you to review videos by neurologists and you'll play busy, requesting I summarize. I have no stomach for games.

I guess you could follow your appeal to authority with some ad hominem instead
 
2010-09-07 08:36:36 PM
mongbiohazard: whatshisname: Torok: I would find it silly to put up a billboard that states that I do not believe in unicorns.

People aren't coming door to door trying to convert you to believe in unicorns and they don't want to teach unicornism in science class, do they?

Sometimes people with imaginary friends need to be told to STFU.


You beat me to it. If belief in unicorns were widespread, commonly viewed as inherently moral, a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to be electable, pushed by the courts (12 step programs), conditioned people towards magical thinking and used to justify curtailing the rights of other citizens... then it wouldn't be so silly to want to put that billboard up, now would it?


That's basically it. If you don't believe in God you are asked to explain yourself. Religion is unique in that respect.
 
2010-09-07 08:38:34 PM
kerpal32: ummmmm I'm pretty sure (well probabilistically certain) that you're confusing religion with theism.

kerpal32: stop confusing religion with theism for 5 minutes. damn man.

Perhaps nobody's talking about (or cares about) your particular nebulous theism.
 
2010-09-07 08:39:20 PM
corronchilejano: Too bad nobody would be there to laugh at the irony.

Yep, the "mirthless joke".
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report