The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses

[CoolMe]

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.

I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?

 

[Lacius]

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.

What a "true believer" says they would do if there was no God isn't necessarily what they would actually do. It doesn't take a god to be a humanist. I also used to be religious, and now I'm not. I'm not committing crimes. See my previous point on how religion doesn't appear to do anything to help society in general. In fact, it hurts things.

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%.

There's no evidence that nonreligious people have a harder time with relationships, etc. If anything, it's the opposite. For example, many LGBT people are told my religions that they can't or shouldn't be in healthy relationships, and let's not even discuss the amount of LGBT suicides caused by religion.

As for your point about "1% of 1%," I suggest you look up the No true Scotsman fallacy.

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".

Instincts aren't real evidence, and anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence. Both are examples of what we would call "blind faith." If it's belief without evidence, it's faith.

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.

First, how I feel emotionally about a claim is not reason to believe or not believe it, so the question is pointless with regard to the topic of whether or not it's rational to believe a god exists, and the question is disingenuous. Second, the fact that my life is finite makes it even more valuable, and it's all the more reason for me to live my life to the fullest while I'm here: to maximize the happiness of myself and others around me. The idea that an atheist who accepts the finality of death will inherently be selfish, etc. says a lot more about you than it does about me. I'm still a humanist who cares about other people.

Not that it demonstrates a god does or doesn't exist, but If there's an infinite perfect afterlife after this, you tell me what the point of living is.

I said "when they first popped up".

You said that in order to believe in gravitational waves, I have to have faith. You were utterly and demonstrably mistaken. It is reasonable to accept a claim as true or likely true without having repeated the experiment so long as evidence exists for the claim. It was reasonable to believe in gravitational waves when they were first detected, and it's reasonable to believe in them now. In fact, based on all of the other evidence we had, it was reasonable to believe they likely existed even before we detected them. I'll take your post as a concession.

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.

It sounds like you're saying the Bible is a cesspool of contradictions, with very little true meaning or value, if it's up to interpretation.

Once again: there is no contradiction when correctly interpreted by those who actually defined that the Bible is the Bible.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=contradictions+in+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.

It's interesting how you pick and choose passages in the Bible. There are very clear statements that it's, for example, impossible to go to Heaven without accepting Jesus.

I'm actually not super interested in how you try to rationalize away the evil in the Bible. I'm more interested in what evidence there is that any religious belief is true or likely true.

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.

That's correct. And since there's no evidence for any religious claim, religious beliefs are equally irrational. If one cares if their beliefs are true, they require evidence for their beliefs. If you accept a claim as true or likely true despite there being no evidence for that claim, then you care more about the claim being true than whether or not it's actually true, and that's intellectually dishonest.

Now tell me, how are the 10 commandments, for instance, a bad thing for humanity?

I like the Ten Commandments, because they're a pretty good demonstration of how, if the God of the Bible exists, he's feckless and idiotic. Most people I know could do a better job coming up with a list of Ten Commandments that include the ten most important rules/commandments they should know. Children do a better job.

Using Catholicism for this, just so I don't have to type them all:

• Commandments 1-2 show a conceited and needy god underserving of worship. These also exist nowhere in American law. These Commandments are also bad for the same reason religion is bad: They promote irrationality by literally commanding you to believe in something that you have no reason to think is true.
• Commandment 3 is pointless and can arguably be grouped with 1-2. It also doesn't exist in American law.
• Commandment 4 isn't absolutely true even if it's generally true; some parents should not be honored. It also shows just how much religion is very much a system for managing children similar to the Santa Claus story. This also doesn't exist in American law.
• Commandment 5 is a good rule. It's the first one that should be on this list. However, laws and morality regarding murder significantly predate the Ten Commandments.
• Commandment 6, while good as a general rule, shouldn't be a commandment, and it isn't absolutely true. It also exists nowhere in American law.
• Commandment 7 is good and is the second one deserving of being on this list. However, once again, laws and morality regarding theft predate this commandment.
• Commandment 8 is a good rule of thumb, but it is far from always true. It arguably shouldn't be among the top ten most important rules people should generally follow. And, other than issues regarding perjury, this commandment doesn't exist in American law.
• Commandments 9-10 are just stupid. There's nothing wrong with coveting something or someone. Not only is this not in American law, but the American economy depends on people not following this rule.

And, most importantly, the Ten Commandments are infamously missing very important rules, such as not raping people, not molesting children, not owning slaves, etc.

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.

I generally agree with this. However, the requirements for evidence are going to be proportional to the weight of the claim. If it's a minor claim, like "Chris owns a cat," I'm not going to demand to see the cat before I tentatively accept the claim as likely true. I have enough evidence of humans as cat-owners, Chris as trustworthy, etc. to be rational in accepting the claim as probably true. However, I'm not going to believe the claim "Chris owns a dragon" without extraordinary evidence, since it's an extraordinary claim.

But, I'm being pedantic. Yes, I require evidence for my beliefs, and you should too. When you make an exception for religion, there's nothing stopping you and others from making exceptions or anything they want.

If you ever find the spiritual path, you will be a great religious person.

It's nearly impossible for me to "find the spiritual path" in the absence of evidence for what you would describe as the "spiritual."

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.

We can probably nix every other topic of conversation we're having and focus on this point: What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim? If you cannot articulate that evidence, or if the evidence doesn't actually demonstrate the truthfulness of the claim, then the religious belief cannot be rational.

I expect that you care if your beliefs are true. If/when you realize you have no real evidence that religious claims are true, I and the other nonbelievers will welcome you with open arms. The world is a much easier place to navigate when you get to be logically consistent.

As a final tidbit of thought: If religion was completely irrational, it would have died out already, don't you think?

Humans are irrational all the time. They fear death, they grieve lost loved ones, they've been indoctrinated to believe something since early childhood, etc.

Religion is clearly irrational, but I never said moving past it was easy. Cancer is clearly bad, but that doesn't mean it's easy to remove either.

 

[AlexMCS]

I'll rest my case here for now, since this is clearly going nowhere, but this was as great insight in your mindset.

We'll talk again in a few months, and I'm sure you will be singing quite a different song XD

 

[Lacius]

I'll rest my case here for now, since this is clearly going nowhere, but this was as great insight in your mindset.

I distilled the conversation to a single question: "What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim?" I can't say I'm surprised you want to end the conversation there and don't want to answer the question. You and I are in agreement that trying to answer this question will probably "go nowhere." Thank you for dropping the pretense.

We'll talk again in a few months, and I'm sure you will be singing quite a different song XD

You can't expect me to "sing a different song" when you won't/can't articulate any evidence for religious claims.

 

[CloudStrife1901]

I know somebody who was a jw. When she left the fellowship her own mother disowned her. Made her out to be a outcast and didn't want to know.

My aunty was also one and she ended up in a looney house because it made her mentally unstable with how much BS was brainwashed into her

 

[tabzer]

People who think they are above religion repeat the same mistakes with belief systems that they can't identify as religion. It's history that identifies ways of thinking and belief systems as religion after the fact. Maybe in 200 years the current colloquialism will be called a religion with something better to take it's place. How many people say "science" to rationalize actions and then ignore evidence when it suits them? You don't need religion to be hypocritical or a scumbag. People who blame religion for bad action aren't going to be accountable when they do the bad action themselves. Maybe, they are trying to convince themselves that whatever they do is automatically better. Talk about privilege.

 

[ZeroT21]

How do I compare who's imaginary friend is better?

 

[Lacius]

People who think they are above religion repeat the same mistakes with belief systems that they can't identify as religion. It's history that identifies ways of thinking and belief systems as religion after the fact. Maybe in 200 years the current colloquialism will be called a religion with something better to take it's place. How many people say "science" to rationalize actions and then ignore evidence when it suits them? You don't need religion to be hypocritical or a scumbag. People who blame religion for bad action aren't going to be accountable when they do the bad action themselves. Maybe, they are trying to convince themselves that whatever they do is automatically better. Talk about privilege.

I'm a skeptic before I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. I'm not here saying only religion is bad: All irrational thought is bad. If a person actually embraces skepticism and critical thinking, your concerns are unfounded.

Responding to criticisms of religion by acknowledging that other bad things exist is like responding to cancer by acknowledging viral and bacterial infections exist. The cancer is still cancer, and the religion is still irrational and bad.

 

[tabzer]

I'm a skeptic before I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. I'm not here saying only religion is bad: All irrational thought is bad. If a person actually embraces skepticism and critical thinking, your concerns are unfounded.

Religions exist. That's a fact. Conflating whatever you think they are with the actions of people is illogical. Choosing a personalized interpretation of god only to use it as the foundation of disproving the existence of "god" is also irrational.

You are metaphorically eating your own crap.

If god is simply "the unknown" or a method of personifying the universe, then there is no point claiming the existence or lack of. You are on a crusade.

 

[AlexMCS]

"What evidence is there that demonstrates the truthfulness of any religious claim?

People. Individual experiences. Witnesses. Miracles. Possessions. In time you will get there.
I'm saying you will be singing a different song because I have a way to ensure you will change.
Wait for it.

 

[Lacius]

Religions exist. That's a fact. Conflating whatever you think they are with the actions of people is illogical. Choosing a personalized interpretation of god only to use it as the foundation of disproving the existence of "god" is also irrational.

You are metaphorically eating your own crap.

If god is simply "the unknown" or a method of personifying the universe, then there is no point claiming the existence or lack of. You are on a crusade.

Yes, religions exist, and a lot of other bad ideas exist too. I'm saying all irrational beliefs are bad.

I never once said anything about "disproving the existence of a god," nor did I claim I even could. Religion is irrational because it's unsupported by evidence. That's it.

Redefining god to be synonymous with "the unknown," and saying it's rational to believe in the unknown, is pretty pointless. You might as well be saying, "God is this stapler, and this stapler exists, so therefore belief in a god is rational, hurr hurr hurr." That's not what we mean when we talk about religious beliefs. The god claim has baggage, particularly when we're specifically talking about religions.

Unless you can articulate any evidence for religious beliefs, I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Until that can be done, you should agree with me that religious belief is irrational.

People. Individual experiences. Witnesses. Miracles. Possessions. In time you will get there.
I'm saying you will be singing a different song because I have a way to ensure you will change.
Wait for it.

Listing nouns isn't an articulation of evidence. Please be specific with your evidence if you want to be taken seriously. What about any of these things demonstrates that a god exists?

What is the way you have to ensure I will change my mind? Because I already know the answer: Make me aware of some evidence. Until I am aware of evidence that a god exists, I cannot believe a god exists. I care if my beliefs are true.

I'd like to make your claim that I will change my mind a little more falsifiable. How long do I have to wait? It only takes a few seconds to add it to my Google Calendar.

Edit: I think you said in "a few months." What's going to happen in a few months? Is that three months? Five months? I'll probably forget about this conversation soon, but I can add a date to my calendar and then get back to you after I get an alert that the time has passed. Then we can see if this claim of yours that I'll definitely change my mind in a few months was rational.

 

[tabzer]

It's a failure of your understanding to conclude that things that exist are irrational @Lacius

God is this stapler, and this stapler exists, so therefore belief in a god is rational, hurr hurr hurr

This sounds like baggage.

 

[JuanMena]

People and religion both suck.

Amongst everyone in this thread, you must be the one that sucks the most
And @godreborn too!

 

[Xzi]

Yeah Jehova's Witnesses are fuckin' nutter butters. Evangelicals too, though not to quite the same extent. Of course, you'll find extremists and fundamentalists within all religions, it's just that my experience is almost entirely with Christianity here in the US. IMO individual spirituality and/or faith is fine, but you introduce the social (tribal) aspect of religion and things can get pretty cult-like pretty quickly.

I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?

IIRC it has something to do with witnessing the sabbath on Saturday or something. I could be wrong.

 

[Lacius]

It's a failure of your understanding to conclude that things that exist are irrational @Lacius

If you are going to argue that something exists, and that it is rational to believe it exists, then you need to demonstrate that. Until then, the only logically sound position is to reject the claim that a god exists.

 

[tabzer]

If you are going to argue that something exists, and that it is rational to believe it exists, then you need to demonstrate that. Until then, the only logically sound position is to reject the claim that a god exists.

I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so. I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.

 

[EdwardD]

I can understand about Jehovah (And/ or YHWH).. it's the "witnesses" part that i don't understand, like what did they "witness" exactly?

 

[Lacius]

I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so. I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.

You're arguing that something is rational when it isn't. If you are going to do that, you must show how it's rational, and that's going to require you to provide evidence that a god exists (if we're talking about theistic religious beliefs). It isn't rocket science.

Until you can do that, I'm justified in saying religions are irrational.

 

[ChibiMofo]

I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.

In fairness, that can be said about every single religious cult on the face of the planet. Especially the biggest ones. They are the scourge of the Earth and are the biggest barrier to peace, prosperity and happiness. I am not defending JW's. But imagine continuing to give money to the largest child molestation cult in human history that systematically moved child-rapers around to ensure they'd be able to find new victims in new communities. Any other organization that did that would be shut down and its "leaders" imprisoned for life, and of course no self-respecting parent would have anything to do with them. And yet the biggest cult of them all continues unabated and is not subject to the same kind of scrutiny that non-religious institutions are because their nutcase followers impose a kind of censorship wherever they go. Which is why I am not mentioning them by name. Unbelievable that I live in a world where a group like that that has systematically terrorized, tortured and murdered the rest of us for nearly two millennia gets that kind of support!

 

[smf]

I once tried to date a girl that was a Jehovah Witness.

First thing she said was: Did you know I'm Jehovah Witness? And she brought someone else onto our date.
Never saw her again after that.


Edit: Not gonna lie, she was cute. Wonder how's she nowadays?

Me too, we went to the cinema. I'm pretty sure there were three of us.

Shortly after I was texting her and I got a text that I think was meant for someone else. It all got a bit odd and I never heard from her. A few months later she turned up in places she thought I'd be and asked around for me, said she'd lost my number when her phone changed. I wasn't able to get hold of her and she didn't leave a number.

It was all kinda odd. Not cute enough to worry about though.

I am not making the argument that god exists or that you should believe so. I am pointing out that you think things are irrational.

It is irrational, because it's faith. Isn't that the whole point?