Avainsanana uskonto

The problem with bringing an actual scientist to the discusson

19. kesäkuuta 2019 klo 11.50
Sijainti: Videosivustot: YouTube
Avainsanat: tiede, uskonto

The problem with bringing an actual scientist to the discussion is that they work with facts and theory, which doesn’t always translate to easily digestible bites (especially on-the-fly), whereas the WT are free to mould their neat, naive packages of misinformation and misquotes with little regard to science and actual facts (and the believing readers probably also won’t come across the facts on their own). A certain disparaging analogy with pigeons and chess comes to mind.

On the flip side, showing an actual scientist’s confidence and their reaction to creationist BS should help to dismantle the narrative of ”evolutionists” being confused or unsure in the slightest about the fact of evolution.

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (YouTube)

Norway, what’s wrong with you?!

3. tammikuuta 2019 klo 12.43
Sijainti: Videosivustot: YouTube
Avainsanat: Norja, uskonto

Thanks for the explanation, I was looking at North Europe thinking: Norway, what’s wrong with you?!

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (YouTube)

Great point about the lack of pride in shunning

26. kesäkuuta 2018 klo 15.42
Sijainti: Videosivustot: YouTube
Avainsanat: psykologia, uskonto

Great point about the lack of pride in shunning, it really is quite striking now that you’ve articulated it. It stands in contrast to how they do seem to take pride in, say, the blood policy (from an outsider’s POV at least). Both are destructive, yet one is flaunted, while the other is treated like the shameful half-secret that it is.

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (YouTube)

Here’s a transcript of the interview, and a relatively legible Google translation

22. toukokuuta 2018 klo 17.15
Sijainti: Muut: reddit
Avainsanat: Google, uskonto

Here’s a transcript of the interview by (and with interspersed comments from) a Finnish ex-JW; here’s the (relatively legible) Google translation (in English).

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (reddit)


7. heinäkuuta 2017 klo 15.19
Sijainti: Muut: reddit
Avainsanat: TV7, uskonto


Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (reddit)

I’m slightly surprised that Disney allow preaching work there

3. heinäkuuta 2017 klo 18.16
Sijainti: Videosivustot: YouTube
Avainsanat: Disney, Disneyland, uskonto

Mildly off topic: I’m slightly surprised that Disney allow preaching work there. I thought they generally try to appear neutral wrt. to religions, politics and such, and I’d think the easiest way to achieve that here would be an outright ban on all evangelizing within the park. I mean, if they allow the JW there, that opens the door for the likes of Westboro Baptist Church, whom Disney would then either have to also allow in or (more likely) deny. The latter could then be used to argue that they aren’t truly unbiased.

I wonder if this allowance is something they are required to do by the 1st amendment.

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (YouTube)

”Dein ist die Hand die verletzt”

8. syyskuuta 2015 klo 8.07
Sijainti: Blogit: Silmänkääntövankila
Avainsanat: Salaiset kansiot, uskonto

”Dein ist die Hand die verletzt”, eivätkös ne opet siellä jotain manatessaan noin sanoneet? Siitä se otsikko oli repäisty.

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (Silmänkääntövankila)


27. kesäkuuta 2015 klo 12.12
Sijainti: Blogit: Nuoruusdisko
Avainsanat: 1990-luku, uskonto

Tuomiopäivänkultteja. Vuosituhannen lopussa tekivät harva se päivä jotain kahjoa joka ylitti uutiskynnyksen, nykyisin ei tapahdu enää mitään!

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (Nuoruusdisko)

In case you’re still amused to read this, let me explain my confusion

30. toukokuuta 2015 klo 11.39
Sijainti: Muut: reddit
Avainsanat: eläin, uskonto

In case you’re still amused to read this, let me explain my confusion.

1) From your first reply above, I gathered you consider it valid to call animals atheists.

2) From your first reply to me, I gathered you consider it technically valid to also call rocks atheists, but somewhat misusing the term (as it’s not what it ”is meant to describe”), like calling rocks blind.

3) Those two premises lead me to ask my question, to pinpoint where the difference between the two in your view stems from: why isn’t calling animals atheists equally wrong.

4) In your answer, I felt you said the two claims (”animals are atheists”, ”rocks are atheists/blind”) are equally valid, which obviously goes against my assumption in 2) and thus broke my chain of reasoning about yours.

From your comments in the other thread below, I see you write atheism ”is the simply the absence of the position that they do exist”. If I’m (finally) reading you correctly and put it another way, you don’t preclude a question (in the most abstract sense) of their position being posable for someone/-thing to be considered atheist; this would suggest that my mistake was at 2), assuming you consider ”rocks being atheist” somewhat less correct than ”animals being atheist”, when in reality you consider them just as valid: an object (in your view) does not have to be able to be theist to be rightly called atheist.

As I said, I have no strong inclination about this myself, but writing this I do seem to see at the back of my mind a tendency to presuppose at least a potential for theism for a creature/object being validly considered an atheist. It doesn’t mean they’ve been posed the question of supernatural beings, just that they have the potential to develop such ideas. This would obviously exclude rocks, as they lack even the remotest potential of developing any ideas at all (and equally, calling them blind would be wrong in the sense that they will never have any potential of seeing).

On the other hand, intelligent, adult animals (such as dolphins) might very well fall into this category of potential theists, and thus be correctly called atheist in this system. Not because they have developed theist views and then rejected them, but just because they have the potential to do so, and haven’t. Very small children (human babies, as well as non-human non-adult animals) would not, because they lack the required capability for the potential to emerge. (Obviously I have no evidence of either intelligent animals’ capability to develop ideas of supernatural, nor of babies’ lack thereof; these are just based on my gut feeling.)

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (reddit)

I’m aware of Dawkins’ work

30. toukokuuta 2015 klo 9.01
Sijainti: Muut: reddit
Avainsanat: eläin, Richard Dawkins, uskonto

I’m aware of Dawkins’ work (being an atheist myself), but not of his views about animals being atheists or allegories about blind rocks, and unfortunately couldn’t find anything about it on Youtube. (Youtube’s search is pretty bad though.)

Vastaa viestiin sen kontekstissa (reddit)

Vanhempia »