Climate change

[robvalue]

You can argue whatever side you want. It will probably help you to see both sides. From what you just said, you are an agnostic/weak atheist already.

Religious objective morality is usually God handing out rules, which are meant to be the best. That makes it subjective to God, so it's not even objective, and with no guarantee it's got anything to do with our wellbeing. We've discarded many of those rules, as clearly immoral by our improved standards.

If you mean is there a different "best" then it depends. In each situation you could make arguments for what is the most moral action, but you'll never get a complete consensus. We try and improve things, but as things change, so does morality and so does the environment. Morality can't be broken down into simple rules like the bible would like to say. The idea that morality can just exist somehow, without anyone to judge it, just as part of the universe, doesn't make sense.

In my opinion you've had "objective morality" drummed into your head for a long time so you're trying to keep it making sense.

It all comes down to the definition of morality. Is it about wellbeing or is about what God wants? They are not the same thing. If God exists, I don't care what makes him happy or sad, he can take care of himself. I'll deal with beings that don't hide from me for now.

[Aractus]

Many great points. I am 27 and I only meant that an EVERYDAY JW compared to an EVERYDAY (insert bible based religion) would know more about the bible. I know for a fact that this is true because I have been knocking on doors since I was a child and when I was 10 I could use more scriptures to explain many of my basic beliefs than an adult catholic, mormon, Presbyterian, etc. I even think its humorous that you're an atheist but you still invoke scripture to base some beliefs not held by witnesses, i.e. the trinity. We can agree that if the bible is bunk then we have nothing to argue about but I still think that I can quote way more scripture to differentiate Jesus and Jehovah than you can claiming they're the same. I also think its funny when Atheist bring up how certain moral grounds have improved. Because that does imply an objective moral value. Which is seems to make the moral argument valid. Again, I know that an average JW could explain their beliefs via the bible better than 80-90% of any other AVERAGE bible based religious person. 

Okay well let me put this in a different way then. Orthodox and Catholics believe that (and still believe) that the Septuagint is a more valid form of the OT scriptures than the Masoretic Text. This belief is so well engrained that even when presented with new evidence, such as the emergence of the DSS that proves that the MT was not systematically altered over time (at least since the time of Jesus), they still persist with this belief. In the Council of Trent (16th century) the Roman Catholic Church officially recognised the Latin Vulgate as the authoritative form of the scripture; thus elevating the LXX (or at least the version of it that's in their manuscripts which includes the "Theodotion version" of Daniel) to the same status.

Now there are several errors in the KJV also. In fact, the Greek text that it was based on, the Novum Instrumentum omne, didn't have the final leaf of the book of Revelation - so Erasmus back translated it from the Vulgate. There are several other clear errors in Novum Instrumentum omne - yet the KJV is one of two versions that JW will accept - the other being the NWT. The NWT itself modifies the NT in dozens of places in order to insert Jehovah's name; even though the Tetragrammaton is never used in the NT. This is despite the fact that the NT in fact has an unusual practise of using what's called the Nomina Sacra; not in the originals but certainly in the copies. So in effect; JW's have chosen out of all the instances of the Nomina Sacra to only treat those that refer to "Jehovah" specially, and ignores the rest. The use of the The Nomina Sacra in the Greek suggests that in the OT originals the Tetragrammaton was not written in a special way as it is in the MT and DSS copies. But it was in use at the time of Jesus and at the time that the Gospels were written - therefore if the NT writers had wanted to put in the Tetragrammaton they would have; just as they made some use of Aramaic in the New Testament despite it being written down in Greek.

What JW's "know" about the Bible is subjective; and is dictated by the Watchtower. Just as what Catholics believe about it is dictated by their councils and particularly the council of Trent that tells them that the Vulgate is sola scripture. Even Protestants still base their translations of the OT on understandings they derive from the "LXX" and the Vulgate. There's nothing inherently special or different about the JW's understanding of the Bible. There are many theologians that know every word of the Bible and can quote just about any passage from memory - from all denominations. There are many scholars who intently study the wording of the text to figure out the original readings. Revelation 13:18 - the NWT says the number of the beast is 666 with no footnote. Yet we don't know this; that's one of the examples where the original reading is NOT known. 616 comes from Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus which represents a different linage than most other codices; for a long time it was thought that it was a mistake unique to that codex until it was discovered in P115; and therefore 616 or 666 are equally likely. P115 is one of only two known manuscripts dating to the 3rd century that contain the book of Revelation. So now the two oldest copies have a disagreement in that number. This is a clear example of how knowledge of the Biblical text progresses over time. Just as the other examples I gave you - such as the MT being clearly better than the LXX or Vulgate. I don't see Jehovah Witnesses following these developments and using it to further their understanding of the Biblical text - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sceptics take the gospel of John far less literally than the synoptic gospels. However; as I've shown you the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation in particular make clear claims to the deity of Jesus. Again, I don't see JW's acknowledging this; even though every one else who reads those books can see it clearly. And for the record I don't think the Gospel of John was written in the second century at all - I think it was probably written no later than 80 AD. Furthermore the NWT translates "stauros" as stake instead of cross. Now this is despite the abundance of evidence outside of the Bible that describes the crucifixion method used by the Roman empire. So how is that a "deeper understanding"? It isn't - it's a denial.

See for yourself:



That image dates to sometime from the late-first to early-3rd centuries; while crucifixion was still performed. Here's another:



It dates to around the same time, and clearly mocks Jesus.

And just for good measure here's one though to be from the fourth century:



Notice a pattern? Not a single ancient image of crucifixion has surfaced that doesn't show a distinct cross - until the late 16th century.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jw's are pretty much the only religion that goes out to preach in public and door to door.

This is not true, in my experience, but even if it is, it is no credit to that faith. Nothing says "universal truth" like needing door-to-door salesmen.

We go with a scriptural message. I know that I have met a few people that knew the bible very well but that was the exception. The rule is that most people I have talked can't scripturally explain their beliefs. Think about it, a lot of research has shown that atheist know the bible better than most christians. Its not like its a high bar in the first place. But I would stake a million dollars that if you took 1000 everyday JW's, 1000 everyday Catholics, and a 1000 everyday Mormons that the JW's could use more scriptures to explain their beliefs. 

The Biblical purity of a faith is not a strong point, either, given the fact that the Bible is pretty much horseshit.

[Won2blv]

You can argue whatever side you want. It will probably help you to see both sides. From what you just said, you are an agnostic/weak atheist already.

Religious objective morality is usually God handing out rules, which are meant to be the best. That makes it subjective to God, so it's not even objective, and with no guarantee it's got anything to do with our wellbeing. We've discarded many of those rules, as clearly immoral by our improved standards.

If you mean is there a different "best" then it depends. In each situation you could make arguments for what is the most moral action, but you'll never get a complete consensus. We try and improve things, but as things change, so does morality and so does the environment. Morality can't be broken down into simple rules like the bible would like to say. The idea that morality can just exist somehow, without anyone to judge it, just as part of the universe, doesn't make sense.

In my opinion you've had "objective morality" drummed into your head for a long time so you're trying to keep it making sense.

It all comes down to the definition of morality. Is it about wellbeing or is about what God wants? They are not the same thing. If God exists, I don't care what makes him happy or sad, he can take care of himself. I'll deal with beings that don't hide from me for now.

Funny you say that because my religious views in my profile have been the same since I opened my account... agnostic. Maybe it is just a matter of what we as humans feel is right or wrong changes with the times but I definitely ponder this thought a lot

---

Many great points. I am 27 and I only meant that an EVERYDAY JW compared to an EVERYDAY (insert bible based religion) would know more about the bible. I know for a fact that this is true because I have been knocking on doors since I was a child and when I was 10 I could use more scriptures to explain many of my basic beliefs than an adult catholic, mormon, Presbyterian, etc. I even think its humorous that you're an atheist but you still invoke scripture to base some beliefs not held by witnesses, i.e. the trinity. We can agree that if the bible is bunk then we have nothing to argue about but I still think that I can quote way more scripture to differentiate Jesus and Jehovah than you can claiming they're the same. I also think its funny when Atheist bring up how certain moral grounds have improved. Because that does imply an objective moral value. Which is seems to make the moral argument valid. Again, I know that an average JW could explain their beliefs via the bible better than 80-90% of any other AVERAGE bible based religious person. 

Okay well let me put this in a different way then. Orthodox and Catholics believe that (and still believe) that the Septuagint is a more valid form of the OT scriptures than the Masoretic Text. This belief is so well engrained that even when presented with new evidence, such as the emergence of the DSS that proves that the MT was not systematically altered over time (at least since the time of Jesus), they still persist with this belief. In the Council of Trent (16th century) the Roman Catholic Church officially recognised the Latin Vulgate as the authoritative form of the scripture; thus elevating the LXX (or at least the version of it that's in their manuscripts which includes the "Theodotion version" of Daniel) to the same status.

Now there are several errors in the KJV also. In fact, the Greek text that it was based on, the Novum Instrumentum omne, didn't have the final leaf of the book of Revelation - so Erasmus back translated it from the Vulgate. There are several other clear errors in Novum Instrumentum omne - yet the KJV is one of two versions that JW will accept - the other being the NWT. The NWT itself modifies the NT in dozens of places in order to insert Jehovah's name; even though the Tetragrammaton is never used in the NT. This is despite the fact that the NT in fact has an unusual practise of using what's called the Nomina Sacra; not in the originals but certainly in the copies. So in effect; JW's have chosen out of all the instances of the Nomina Sacra to only treat those that refer to "Jehovah" specially, and ignores the rest. The use of the The Nomina Sacra in the Greek suggests that in the OT originals the Tetragrammaton was not written in a special way as it is in the MT and DSS copies. But it was in use at the time of Jesus and at the time that the Gospels were written - therefore if the NT writers had wanted to put in the Tetragrammaton they would have; just as they made some use of Aramaic in the New Testament despite it being written down in Greek.

What JW's "know" about the Bible is subjective; and is dictated by the Watchtower. Just as what Catholics believe about it is dictated by their councils and particularly the council of Trent that tells them that the Vulgate is sola scripture. Even Protestants still base their translations of the OT on understandings they derive from the "LXX" and the Vulgate. There's nothing inherently special or different about the JW's understanding of the Bible. There are many theologians that know every word of the Bible and can quote just about any passage from memory - from all denominations. There are many scholars who intently study the wording of the text to figure out the original readings. Revelation 13:18 - the NWT says the number of the beast is 666 with no footnote. Yet we don't know this; that's one of the examples where the original reading is NOT known. 616 comes from Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus which represents a different linage than most other codices; for a long time it was thought that it was a mistake unique to that codex until it was discovered in P115; and therefore 616 or 666 are equally likely. P115 is one of only two known manuscripts dating to the 3rd century that contain the book of Revelation. So now the two oldest copies have a disagreement in that number. This is a clear example of how knowledge of the Biblical text progresses over time. Just as the other examples I gave you - such as the MT being clearly better than the LXX or Vulgate. I don't see Jehovah Witnesses following these developments and using it to further their understanding of the Biblical text - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sceptics take the gospel of John far less literally than the synoptic gospels. However; as I've shown you the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation in particular make clear claims to the deity of Jesus. Again, I don't see JW's acknowledging this; even though every one else who reads those books can see it clearly. And for the record I don't think the Gospel of John was written in the second century at all - I think it was probably written no later than 80 AD. Furthermore the NWT translates "stauros" as stake instead of cross. Now this is despite the abundance of evidence outside of the Bible that describes the crucifixion method used by the Roman empire. So how is that a "deeper understanding"? It isn't - it's a denial.

See for yourself:



That image dates to sometime from the late-first to early-3rd centuries; while crucifixion was still performed. Here's another:



It dates to around the same time, and clearly mocks Jesus.

And just for good measure here's one though to be from the fourth century:



Notice a pattern? Not a single ancient image of crucifixion has surfaced that doesn't show a distinct cross - until the late 16th century.

You miss my point. I am not talking about theologians or academics in the religious studies field, I am talking about everyday church goers

[robvalue]

Yeah, but agnostic is not a statement of belief/non belief. Both theists and atheists can be agnostic. "Just agnostic" is a refusal to answer the question "do you have an active belief one or more god exists", or to use different definitions of words. Many people misunderstand these terms.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!agnosti...stic/c1xja

Of course, you're not obliged to answer the question anyway.

There's actually 3 positions, 2 of which are atheism.

Question 1: Do you have an active belief there are one or more gods?
Question 2: Do you have an active belief there are no gods?

Position 1: Y, N: Theist (Could be agnostic or gnostic)
Position 2: N, N: Agnostic atheist
Position 3: N, Y: Atheist (Could be agnostic or gnostic)

Everyone is in one of those 3 positions by definition, but of course they are not required to state which if they are not comfortable doing so. I would be pretty confident putting you in position 2, it applies to all "just agnostic" people in my experience. As I said, they are essentially dropping the "atheist" part.

Hey, I liked that, I'm gonna put that on my website

And indeed yes, what we consider right and wrong certainly does change. Hopefully, we improve. I think generally we do.

---

My wish is my command! And so it appears.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k now has an extra bit at the bottom.

[Won2blv]

Yeah, but agnostic is not a statement of  belief/non belief. Both theists and atheists can be agnostic. "Just agnostic" is a refusal to answer the question "do you have an active belief one or more god exists", or to use different definitions of words. Many people misunderstand these terms.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!agnosti...stic/c1xja

Of course, you're not obliged to answer the question anyway.

There's actually 3 positions, 2 of which are atheism.

Question 1: Do you have an active belief there are one or more gods?
Question 2: Do you have an active belief there are no gods?

Position 1: Y, N: Theist (Could be agnostic or gnostic)
Position 2: N, N: Agnostic atheist
Position 3: N, Y: Atheist (Could be agnostic or gnostic)

Everyone is in one of those 3 positions by definition, but of course they are not required to state which if they are not comfortable doing so. I would be pretty confident putting you in position 2, it applies to all "just agnostic" people in my experience. As I said, they are essentially dropping the "atheist" part.

Hey, I liked that, I'm gonna put that on my website

And indeed yes, what we consider right and wrong certainly does change. Hopefully, we improve. I think generally we do.

---

My wish is my command! And so it appears.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k now has an extra bit at the bottom.

I feel like my position is that logically god makes sense to me but not emotionally. Does that make sense? 

[robvalue]

Sure Strangely I would guess that it's normally the other way round. People believe, or want to believe, in God for emotional reasons then try to rationalise it with logic that they can't make work.

I do this too. For example, I really want to play another game of Hearthstone. I say to myself, "Well, it will help me relax."

Although the statement is true, part of me knows it isn't the primary reason. It's like I feel embarrassed to myself and need to justify the decision. But then I'm embarrassed because I realize I've rationalised it rather than explained it. I analyse too much.