You got me curious
EDIT: Googles "Mormon Soaking Definition"
5 seconds later
It's like Christians saying things like: "Oral is not a sin if you do it on your knees and think of Jesus while doing it"
Last edited by JuanMena,
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter Marc_LFD
- Start date
- Views 14,563
- Replies 224
- Likes 7
EDIT: Googles "Mormon Soaking Definition"
5 seconds later
It's like Christians saying things like: "Oral is not a sin if you do it on your knees and think of Jesus while doing it"
True on all counts.
What "Christian" has ever said that? I find it hard to believe, considering that the vast majority of "Christians" think that the passage about some dude "spilling his seed on the ground" was the bible being against masturbation. That was NOT the point of the story.
Opinions like Faustus arrogantly and ignorantly espouses are just that, opinions. To make statements as if he has actual knowledge is laughable, especially when he exposes his obvious lack of research and knowledge. The loudest and most ignorant voices are the ones being listened to in our day and age.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2021
- Messages
- 680
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 34
- Location
- The Best State on The Best Coast
- XP
- 826
- Country
Well Hello to you too new member, welcome to the community! Also for future reference if you want to mention someone feel free to use the "@" feature in the beginning of someone's handle so they can know you wanted to mention them! Just like so @WoodrowLives
Now with that out of the way.. Care explain to me why I am wrong or care to back up your beliefs on anything I have stated thus far? Was it about Mormons, JW's or a majority of Christian/Catholic based holidays being originally pagan based? Please I would like to know so at least I could go into detail more on the matter, if not just myself perhaps someone else here would like to chime in as well? But please, if you are going to make a counter argument for why I might be wrong please do so in a constructive way and not just make a statement lampooning me without any counter to the argument. That just wastes everyone's time. That is unless I somehow offended you and you are a Mormon/JW or hell a Scientologist. In which case, well..
That's just not my problem mate, but I feel for you. I really do.
I don't understand your strongly negative feelings towards religion. I don't believe in it myself but don't feel the need to express bitterness towards it either.
Ignore him. He is in a different kind of cult that preaches being above religion--ironically.
Nah, I just don't need to believe in some kind of higher power to teach me right from wrong. Or that some narcissistic sky fairy is going to burn me for eternity if I don't do what he says.
That doesn't explain your bitterness. Did you lose a loved one to a cult in the past?Nah, I just don't need to believe in some kind of higher power to teach me right from wrong. Or that some narcissistic sky fairy is going to burn me for eternity if I don't do what he says.
Nah, I was just raised in a Christian/conservative household, and I never really fed into the bullshit. Now that I'm grown and 38 years old as an adult, I see religion is used to start wars and conflict. It really brings out the absolute worst in people, and just needs abolished altogether.
Oh guys, I found out why people suck. It's because religion exists.
Lol. Let's end religion so that humanity can return to its natural peace loving state.
Also, I'm 38 years old. I am an adult.
Religion is unsubstantiated nonsense, and I think JW's are as illogical about their religious beliefs as any other religious person.
Humanity would be far better off without religion.
Religion is one of the few things in the world that can cause otherwise good people to do terrible things. Religion requires a person to abandon critical thought and skepticism, and if a person can believe in something for illogical reasons, they can believe in a whole bunch of things about science, mortality, etc. for illogical reasons. It's why we often see a correlation between religiosity and unscientific beliefs, for example. As another example, a person who has religious beliefs, despite having zero evidence for those beliefs, could also believe the election was stolen with zero evidence.
Humanity would be far better off without religion.
This topic really enlightens me on the opinion of some posters.
I sincerely hope you all eventually find the true God in your lives.
It can be a deterrent, stopping evil inclined people from doing evil deeds.
An attempt to explain what the human knowledge will never be able to.
1 - religions must not be contradictory. Any system that contradicts itself can assert any statement as truth, since logically "P -> Q = Truth" for any Q if P is false.
2 - religions must always establish themselves as the only right one. So you should never be surprised when every religion says it's THE religion. Truth state is binary: you are either right or wrong (include here incomplete truths).
3 - religions should have a positive impact on the world. Also, people should not confuse religion with the religious people, specially the hypocrites. They should never force non believers to adhere to their precepts. It's a free choice.
4- religions do not require humans to abandon though or logical thinking. Those are cults.
5- religions are about getting in touch with 'the unseen', the world beyond. If it's only about earthly matters, it's an organization or an institution, not a religion.
If you can find the religion which fits these 3 criteria, congratulations, you have found the truth.
As a final notice to Lacius in particular: if you need evidence for every single thing, you should discredit science, particularly science related to non repeatable experiments, like the one who "proved" the existence of gravitational waves. I also hope no one competent enough to delete all evidences of their deeds frames you for anything in your life.
Humanity would be far better off with more intution and non-blind faith.
I sincerely hope you all eventually find the true God in your lives.
The opposite is also true, Lacius.
It can be a deterrent, stopping evil inclined people from doing evil deeds.
A religion is a belief system. A way for humans to get in touch with their spiritual side/divinity.
An attempt to explain what the human knowledge will never be able to.
1 - religions must not be contradictory. Any system that contradicts itself can assert any statement as truth, since logically "P -> Q = Truth" for any Q if P is false.
2 - religions must always establish themselves as the only right one. So you should never be surprised when every religion says it's THE religion. Truth state is binary: you are either right or wrong (include here incomplete truths).
3 - religions should have a positive impact on the world. Also, people should not confuse religion with the religious people, specially the hypocrites. They should never force non believers to adhere to their precepts. It's a free choice.
4- religions do not require humans to abandon though or logical thinking. Those are cults.
5- religions are about getting in touch with 'the unseen', the world beyond. If it's only about earthly matters, it's an organization or an institution, not a religion.
If you can find the religion which fits these 3 criteria, congratulations, you have found the truth.
As a final notice to Lacius in particular: if you need evidence for every single thing, you should discredit science, particularly science related to non repeatable experiments, like the one who "proved" the existence of gravitational waves. I also hope no one competent enough to delete all evidences of their deeds frames you for anything in your life.
Humanity would be far better off with more intution and non-blind faith.
There's no real evidence of religion acting as a significant deterrent against "evil deeds," but we have more than enough evidence of religion causing a significant number of otherwise good people to do bad things.
One should not believe a claim unless there's evidence supporting that claim. Anything else is irrational, by definition. If people feel emboldened to believe something despite it being irrational, then there's nothing stopping them from being irrational when it comes to other things.
As for your numbered points:
- A lot of religions, including the big ones, are self-contradicting. In addition, just because something isn't contradictory doesn't mean there's any reason to think it's true.
- A claim that something is true is irrelevant if there's no evidence that it's true.
- Religiosity does not have a positive effect on the world. Not even getting into the weeds regarding all of the immoral things churches and adherents do, religion promotes irrational thought and condemns critical thinking, and that alone makes it negative. Also, many of the big religions take a "believe or else" approach to religiosity. According to most forms of Christianity, for example, you get eternal damnation for not believing. That doesn't sound very free to me.
- All religions I'm aware of require the suspension of skepticism and critical thinking in order to believe the religious claims. Many of the big religions, like Christianity, also promote belief without evidence; look at any passage in the Bible regarding faith and not leaning on one's own understanding.
- I don't disagree with you here. The problem is there's no reason to believe what you describe as "the world beyond" exists.
I could make up something ridiculous right now that isn't contradictory, claims it's the right belief, has positive effects on the world (aside from being irrational), and claims to describe the "world beyond." That doesn't mean it's true. I could also make up multiple things that fit your criteria and contradict one another. What you described isn't a pathway to truth, since your criteria would require you to believe unsubstantiated, contradictory, and openly untrue things.
What you listed reads like an ex post facto defense of one's religious beliefs, but it doesn't work.
A person who embraces logic and skepticism should require evidence for their beliefs, without exception.
Science is all about experimentation and evidence, so a person who requires evidence for their beliefs should absolutely embrace science. I'm not sure what you have against gravitational waves specifically (I definitely didn't bring them up), but it's a confusing hill you've chosen to die on. They were demonstrated to exist in 2015, and those who detected them won Nobel prizes for it. If you're sincerely interested, you can find more information about the detection of gravitational waves here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_astronomy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
"Faith" is a detriment to humanity, since it means "irrational belief" in this context (some people define "faith" to just mean "belief," but that's not how I'm using it, and it's not what it means in the context of either of our posts). Also, "non-blind faith" is an oxymoron. By definition, faith is blind if we're using it to mean the excuse one gives for belief in the absence of evidence.
While you aren't wrong, JW are especially dangerous with what they do. There are levels to this kind of shit. At the top with the most cultish and most dangerous major 'religion' or whatever, is Scientology, below that are Jehovah's Witnesses, below that are Mormons, and it keeps getting less and less egregious the more you go down.
This guy who grew up as a JW has great videos dissecting how bad being raised within the religion is, I highly recommend his stuff if the topic is of interest to you:
Growing up being raised Catholic, I can tell you that we never suffered such forms of separation, isolation, or control that they experience being raised as a JW.
Last edited by MikaDubbz,
I would stay away from any belief system that comes off as a "cult", that inhibit any form of separation, isolation, prejudice and control.
There is PLENTY of evidence that many people avoid having bad behavior in fear of post-mortem damnation.
And it's just common sense really.
I chose gravitational waves since faith was required to believe in them when they first popped up as "proven" since there was currently no way to repeat the experiment in a short time frame.
Science works on repeatable experiments. You are believing the claims of of someone without having the means to confirm it yourself. In such occasions, this is more faith than science.
When you believe on a scientific discovery that requires a unique equipment or a unique event, you are even more faithful than some religious people.
This is what science is. It's a non-contradictory logic circle. Yet you accept it as valid/true at any point in time without question, other than the 'caveat' that it's open to review, or, in other words, it might not be true after all.
Faith is belief without understanding. Blind faith is belief without reason/logic. There is a huge difference.
1. Catholicism is not self-contradicting, for one. Buddhism isn't either IIRC.
2. Addressed above. That is what a postulate is in science. Yet no scientist thinks postulates are bogus.
3. Addressed above, first point. Specially in religions that promote charity and science. As for the "believe it or else", there are plenty of caveats in some of them regarding this. Most religions require you to be what is considered a good person by common sense.
4. Not really. You only to suspend skepticism and critical thinking if said religion is contradictory. You seem to be confused about "contradiction" and "lack of knowledge/understanding". (Actual) Religions require you to believe without understanding, not to believe what is blatantly false. The same way we may never get some answers, because there will always be an underlying question. An example of such a simple question: "Why do positive charges attract negative ones?" This, if answered, will always bring an answer and another question.
5. There is no scientific evidence, but plenty of empirical evidence.
I'd like to see the evidence.
In reality, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference when you compare religious vs. secular communities when it comes to things like crime. In fact, if we looked really hard for differences, you're going to find the secular communities typically doing better according to just about every metric that matters. That being said, there's a significant difference when you compare those communities with regard to things like voting to strip away LGBT rights, etc. Entire wars have also been fought over religion.
Believing in gravitational waves doesn't require faith. There is evidence for their existence, and the evidence is repeatable. You seem to be misinformed. I suggest you do some more research. Here's a list of observations of gravitational waves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
I don't have to confirm something in a laboratory myself to have evidence for justified belief. The evidence still exists, and the belief is rational.
That's not even close to true. I require evidence for each of my beliefs; religious people do not.
I only accept science as true if there's evidence supporting that particular science. The sciences are the best (and only) methods we have at determining what's likely true.
If you want to argue against science and rationality, great. However, that's another topic, since my argument is religion is irrational. If you're just going to put your hands up and say "yeah, but who cares about science and rationality?" I'm not particularly interested in that conversation. It reads to me like a white flag of surrender, because in actuality, most people care whether or not something is rational. You care about what is/isn't rational when you're driving down the highway. You care what is/isn't rational when you're paying for groceries. If you didn't, you'd swerve into oncoming traffic, and you'd give the cashier $10,000 for a loaf of bread.
As for the topic about something being contradictory, I can totally make up a story that isn't contradictory. Plenty of fictional books and movies are without contradiction. That doesn't mean they are real. You seem to have missed my point, so there it is.
You can't be rationally justified in a belief unless you have at least some sort of understanding about the claim. If you're arguing that you can be rationally justified in believing something that you have so little understanding about that you don't even know what evidence for the claim would look like, then you would be mistaken. Rational belief in a claim requires evidence, by definition. "Faith" might as well be synonymous with "blind," because it's the excuse a person gives when they don't have good evidence for believing the claim. If you have evidence for a claim, then provide that, and don't waste anybody's time talking about "faith" or "non-blind faith."
I'm unaware of any case in which there would be a distinction between "faith" and "blind faith." Feel free to give me a specific example if you want, but I doubt the conversation is worthy of our time.
There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.
There is no reason to treat religiosity as a "postulate," "axiom," or anything like it.
Anybody can promote charity and science. Just because a church might do something good like a charity food drive, for example, doesn't mean religion is good. Religion still has the aforementioned baggage of promoting irrational thought, causing otherwise good people to do bad things, etc. If you're so fond of the charity and science a church might promote, let's cut out the religious cancer and leave the good parts.
The Bible is clear that nonbelievers go to Hell, for example, and plenty of people believe it.
You have to suspend skepticism and critical thinking if you believe something despite there being no evidence of that thing being true. It doesn't matter that the claim isn't contradictory. In order to be rational, you have to require evidence for your beliefs. If you care if your beliefs are true, you must attempt to be rational.
You seem to be confused about the difference between "lack of evidence" and "blatantly false." A belief can be irrational even if the claim hasn't be disproved. A belief is irrational if it is unsupported by evidence.
There is no empirical evidence for the religious beliefs we are discussing. That's my whole point. If there were, I'd be religious.
Ask any true believer what they'd do if there was no God. Try thinking about it a bit.
Religion is the moral compass for many of the world's population.
Crime is a measure of law, not ethics. Try looking further (suicides, relationships etc.).
Also, most people who claim to belong to a religion are actually so shallow on it they might as well not be counted.
Actual religious people are less than 1% of the 1%.
Faith: "I believe, since my instincts tell me, and there is enough anecdotal evidence, that there exists a spiritual world".
Blind Faith: "I believe (religious) leader X when he says red haired people are possessed by the demon and should all die".
For atheists, since you are fated to nihility after death, what is the point of living?
The answer will always be: for oneself, one's personal will.
The method will usually be either to indulge in any self-advantageous behavior or to try and leave a legacy, good or bad.
I said "when they first popped up".
The Bible was created by the religion. It does not dictate the religion, it is not above the tradition (correct interpretation and what actually defined "what is a bible") and it does not contradict it. It's not open to free interpretation - that is what gave rise to thousands and thousands of protestant cults.
Once again: there is no contradiction when correctly interpreted by those who actually defined that the Bible is the Bible.
And the religion, which is above a random bible citation, is clear on stating that good people will not, regardless of belief. It's also clear that the safest way to reach Heaven is through such religion, which is why it exists.
I get your point.
Even the "pastafarian" postulate that the universe is rewritten every thursday, as absurd as it sounds, could be true since it's not contradictory, but there is not an ounce of evidence it is, which is why we tend to dismiss it.
Since there is no evidence, we claim it to be irrational.
Now tell me, how are the 10 commandments, for instance, a bad thing for humanity?
You, Lacius, are a bona-fide skeptic. In my opinion, that's great. Critical thinking is essential to humans.
You only believe what has been proven with strong evidence.
You'd need something strong to shake that world view.
If you ever find the spiritual path, you will be a great religious person.
That said, believing with no evidence is indeed stupid. But there is evidence for the spiritual world.
Just not based on the scientific method. It's almost always an individual experience. I can't explain why to you.
As a final tidbit of thought: If religion was completely irrational, it would have died out already, don't you think?
Even the word Jehovah is an error. Ancient Hebrew didn't use vowels, and the consonant letters don't align to English perfectly, so when they wrote YHWH, i.e. Yahweh, it could also be JHVH. Throw the right vowels in there and you get Yahweh. Throw the wrong vowels in there and you get Jehovah. Or so I was told by a linguistics professor many years ago.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
