The Arrogance of Theism and Atheism

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
johnny i dont know where you get your information from, but its not accurate me thinks, first of all we are moving or have moved from Brooklyn and are now stationed in Patterson, or up-state New York

i do not accept that we are declining, i dont know who told you that, and no, it does not bother me at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses
Total number of JW's in the world 7.5 million.

http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/world-headquarters-relocating/

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses
Total number of JW's in the world 7.5 million.

http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/world-headquarters-relocating/

yes but the demographics demonstrate that we are hardly in decline Jonny me ol son, best decision i ever made in my life was to become a Jehovahs Witness, it was not easy and I had much opposition and many barriers to overcome, but its all right now.

YouTube

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but the demographics demonstrate that we are hardly in decline Jonny me ol son, best decision i ever made in my life was to become a Jehovahs Witness, it was not easy and I had much opposition and many barriers to overcome, but its all right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydItRbb0b1E

Interesting stats Robbie. The CofE would like that graph on their side!!

I found it interesting that those figures are supplied by the JWs and that
there are actually more people who call themselves JWs. I wonder
how long that growth can be sustained?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because you are assuming that God is fictional, its an assumption and without substantiating evidence to support the premise, its arrogance.

I was a theist for 20+ years, so I get to say that I haven't assumed god is fictional. 🙂

And I do have evidence that the stories of YHWH were created by men. Most of his believers will tell you as much. They attribute authorship of (most of) the first 5 books about him to Moses. Historians tell us they were passed on by oral traditions and finally recorded in writing around the time of King David.

The only difference is, they believe the books are divinely inspired and I don't.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not, its evidence of nothing of the sort, its a personal testimony that you do not believe the biblical account.

A literal account of Genesis does not fit with the masses of scientific evidence humanity has gathered over the last few hundred years. Based on that insurmountable evidence I have come to the conclusion that a literal God of the Bible does not exist. That is my personal beleif based on the evidence.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A literal account of Genesis does not fit with the masses of scientific evidence humanity has gathered over the last few hundred years. Based on that insurmountable evidence I have come to the conclusion that a literal God of the Bible does not exist. That is my personal beleif based on the evidence.

but there are others who will dispute the claim and state that the book of Genesis is in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding. To cite your interpretation of the exact same scientific data as both insurmountable and conclusive and to designate it as evidence is unacceptable, its not evidence at all of whether God exists or does not, its simply an opinion that you do not think that the Biblical account is in harmony with contemporary scientific thought, which itself is changing and constantly under revision.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Interesting stats Robbie. The CofE would like that graph on their side!!

I found it interesting that those figures are supplied by the JWs and that
there are actually more people who call themselves JWs. I wonder
how long that growth can be sustained?

I dunno, in some places we are doing very well, in other places not so well. I depends upon the governments, for in not a few places our work is under ban or we face extreme persecution.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I was a theist for 20+ years, so I get to say that I haven't assumed god is fictional. 🙂

And I do have evidence that the stories of YHWH were created by men. Most of his believers will tell you as much. They attribute authorship of (most of) the first 5 books about him to Moses. Historians tell us they were passed on by oral traditions and finally re ...[text shortened]... ng David.

The only difference is, they believe the books are divinely inspired and I don't.

but again this is evidence of the inspiration or otherwise of the Biblical text, not evidence for the existence or non existence of God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but there are others who will dispute the claim and state that the book of Genesis is in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding. To cite your interpretation of the exact same scientific data as both insurmountable and conclusive and to designate it as evidence is unacceptable, its not evidence at all of whether God exists or does ...[text shortened]... ny with contemporary scientific thought, which itself is changing and constantly under revision.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is not in any way shape or form in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding. Too make such a claim is delusional.

It's unacceptable to whom? Those who have a literal interpretation of Genesis?! I'm sure it is. But the fact remains that contemporary scientific understanding does not substantiate a literal reading of Genesis. Remember also I'm not making a claim that God does not exist, I'm talking specifically about a literal God of the Bible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but there are others who will dispute the claim and state that the book of Genesis is in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding. To cite your interpretation of the exact same scientific data as both insurmountable and conclusive and to designate it as evidence is unacceptable, its not evidence at all of whether God exists or does ...[text shortened]... ny with contemporary scientific thought, which itself is changing and constantly under revision.

Do you think a literal reading of Genesis is in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding?

Also, when you say 'I choose life' whe you refuse my offer to read a science book, what exactly does that mean?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A literal interpretation of Genesis is not in any way shape or form in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding. Too make such a claim is delusional.

It's unacceptable to whom? Those who have a literal interpretation of Genesis?! I'm sure it is. But the fact remains that contemporary scientific understanding does not substantiate a ...[text shortened]... a claim that God does not exist, I'm talking specifically about a literal God of the Bible.

this is all good and well, but its not evidence for the truth claim that there is no God, its akin to saying that because you do not agree with some elements in a biography the subject of the biography is fictional. Its an assertion made against the accuracy of the biography and does nothing to provide evidence for the existence or otherwise of the subject of the biography.

Why dont you simply give it up dude! admit that your atheism is a simple personal belief without evidence or any basis in rationality and be done with it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you think a literal reading of Genesis is in perfect harmony with contemporary scientific understanding?

Also, when you say 'I choose life' whe you refuse my offer to read a science book, what exactly does that mean?

'I choose life', I got from watching Ice Age, Sid the sloth, rather than go through the mountain, which looked rather ominous and dangerous and potentially life threatening, said to Diego the Sabre tooth tiger, 'no thanks, i choose life'.

I would rather remain detached if you dont mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is all good and well, but its not evidence for the truth claim that there is no God, its akin to saying that because you do not agree with some elements in a biography the subject of the biography is fictional. Its an assertion made against the accuracy of the biography and does nothing to provide evidence for the existence or otherwise of the ...[text shortened]... sm is a simple personal belief without evidence or any basis in rationality and be done with it.

Again, I don't think you are quite understanding what I'm saying. I've explained it numerous times and won't do so again.

I love this idea from you that my basis for rejecting a literal God, even though it is based on contemporary science, is somehow irrational. That's got to be Hoot #1 for the day. We can put that one up there with you claiming you'd forgotten whether you believed Santa existed or not.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Again, I don't think you are quite understanding what I'm saying. I've explained it numerous times and won't do so again.

I love this idea from you that my basis for rejecting a literal God, even though it is based on contemporary science, is somehow irrational. That's got to be Hoot #1 for the day. We can put that one up there with you claiming you'd forgotten whether you believed Santa existed or not.

without evidence dude your atheism is as 'one eyed, junk yard dog crazy', as the meanest Southern Baptist, born again, evangelical snake dancer!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I choose life', I got from watching Ice Age, Sid the sloth, rather than go through the mountain, which looked rather ominous and dangerous and potentially life threatening, said to Diego the Sabre tooth tiger, 'no thanks, i choose life'.

I would rather remain detached if you dont mind.

So in what way is that related to reading science books?