Another Circular Circular.

[Tcg]

.

Apparently due to the pandemic, the JWs have taken to mailing out their circulars rather than knocking on doors and handing them out personally or leaving them in mailboxes if they get no answer. The latest I've gotten in the mail asks, "How do you view the future?" As is often the case, the first part refers to the Bible to answer the question on the cover and the second part purports to answer the question, "Can we really believe what the Bible says?" Oddly the second part contains a total of eight biblical references to support the claim that one can.

Does it make logical sense to accept the verses supporting the Bible as evidence the Bible should be believed?

Do some who receive this circular circular not notice its circular nature?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

Religion has always had the money for advertising, and atheists get no funding.

I don't understand why atheism needs funding. It is simply a position where there is lack of belief in gods.
It is not a position of declaring the need for proselytes...it is not a position of opinion but of lacking belief. Lacking belief is not an opinion. Atheism is not described as lacking belief in gods because of opinion et al. There is no 'because'. Any 'because' comes from other positions, and that those positions might relate to atheism, those positions are not indicative of atheism in and of itself.
Why one lacks belief and wants to tell others those reasons, has nothing directly to do with atheism.

"Knock Knock"
"Who's There?"
"An Atheist"
Why are you knocking at my door?"
"Because I want to tell you WHY I am an atheist."
"I already know what an atheist is. Someone who lacks belief in gods"
"Yes but I want to explain to you WHY I lack belief in gods."
"Not interested. Try next door. "
"Can I leave some information with you to read up on?"
"No thanks. I am happy just to lack belief in gods. I don't need reasons WHY."
"Oh - so you are an atheist too? Would you mind donating to our cause?"
"No - I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. And no, I am not interested in supporting your cause."

Search "proselyte";
a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another.

Search "Indicative";
serving as a sign or indication of something.

You are confusing atheism as such with what atheists decide to do about it. To be atheist costs nothing, since it is neither a church nor religion, we do not impose tithes, nor call people together on a Sunday and pass round the collection -plate.

But, from all I have seen, if atheism wants to put its' own case and not let religion have a total command of the propaganda, money is needed. And there seems to be millions of dollars that Religion can call on, but atheism - as I said - gets no funding. Nor even tax exemption.

I did like your doorstep exchange But in fact it is the religious who go door to door. Has such an atheist ever come with their handout.

"But it's blank."

"That's because it is a collection -envelope."

Neither do 'agnostics' (irreligious theists) come door to door. Those who do come peddling the 'First cause' and infinite recession and - especially - Ordered Universe arguments are going to follow it up with a religious pitch as someone who just believes in an ordered universe isn't likely to be religious on that account.

[TRANSPONDER]

Incidentally
Search "proselyte";
a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another.

I did look and that's correct. I took it to mean the same as apologist or even evangelist, but it really means Convert, or deconvert. I'm always happy to have a misapprehension corrected.

[TRANSPONDER]

These are reliable, predictable and repeatable (1) and even if it is all in my head, or yours, or a brain in a vat or an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, it works according to known physical laws; and if any have been magically stood on their heads, let's see proof of that. Otherwise Newtonian physics is still evidentially valid.

That's the extra golden nugget of why I find the scientific method and reason superior. That's why I trust it. It's repeatable. It doesn't lead me astray. The trust is earned, but it is still trust, because physics can't prove physics. All we can do is keep testing, and keep getting the same results, which we have. It has kept on happening this way for my lifetime. But it might not, tomorrow.

Also one best understand that because it is possible that we exist within an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, while it doesn't change ones understanding of physics it can change ones understanding of ones self in relation to the physics involved in creating said simulation.

Essentially these are an extra layer which - when taken into account as being possible - ones self can then explore that possibility as if it were the actuality - through ones imagination
Imagination itself - our current opinion of its usefulness, the fact that we have it at all - can also be seen as another byte of evidence supporting simulation theory...

Therein, when it comes to 'things of the mind' not even the problem of Infinite regress can be said to be a fallacy.

Mirror...Mirror

The fallacy is in taking the things that the mind can imagine as thereby having some kind of validity in relation to things outside the mind. That people think up different things should show how reliable some imaginings are. Where they do agree, well the practical problem of infinite regression is an understandable conclusion. The concept of two pebbles and two more pebbles making .... pebbles and not ..... is empirical validation that mathematics is sound and not suspicious just because humans discovered it. In the same way I reckon that the rules of logic work because so many can be validated by experiment

I like to use the bush and boulder mind experiment to validate Occam's razor. You walk past a boulder. Beyond it is a bush. As you pas the boulder obscures the bush. Is it hidden or had it vanished? Since we know (just as we can tell a manufactured watch from the natural grass it is lying in) how these things work, we can conclude that the bush is hidden, not ceased to be - until we pass ..damn I'm parched..let me open a tin from the fridge....get to the other side ad it reappears. That Ought to be enough evidence but it is not disprovable that the bush vanished when out of sight (1). But it is the less likely hypothesis, given what we know about the way things work. Thus the principle of parsimony is valid if only as a way of being able to conclude anything.

But fear nor, science to the rescue. We can set up an experiment to verify what happens. The Third party stand off to one side. "Yep, the bush is still there." Science has verified the conclusions of Occam's razor.

"Not so", says the persistent denouncer of science and logic as mere human opinion. "You don't know that the bush didn't stay visible because you were watching."

"So the bush has eyes and a brain?"

"Well, you can't rule out some Mind doing it."

"What - just to try to fool us into thinking reason and experiment is valid when it isn't? Why the heck would it do that?"

"Who knows the Mind of the Cosmos." And that's without the lurch into the Flat earthist conspiracy theory - "It does it just to discredit me and my Beliefs."

But I am confident that you got off long before we got to that stage.

(1) You may laugh, but the same argument 'does a tree exist when there is no -one there to see it?' is considered a valid talking -point. Or we get 'does a falling tree make a sound when no -one is there to hear it?' Which is the same argument as 'does a leaf remain green in the absence of light?' These are apparent paradoxes only because of flawed parameters. specifically confusion caused by equivocation.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

You are confusing atheism as such with what atheists decide to do about it.

On the contrary, it is folk calling themselves atheists who are confusing;

what they decide to do about being atheists with;

the position of atheism.

To be atheist costs nothing, since it is neither a church nor religion, we do not impose tithes, nor call people together on a Sunday and pass round the collection -plate.

Which is why atheists get no funding.

But, from all I have seen, if atheism wants to put its' own case and not let religion have a total command of the propaganda, money is needed.

You are confusing atheism as being an entity, with atheism as being a position.

I did like your doorstep exchange But in fact it is the religious who go door to door. Has such an atheist ever come with their handout.

Yes - my doorstep exchange was borrowing off of organized religious practices and was not meant to be taken as my saying this literally happens, but rather how I would respond if it did literally happen.

Incidentally
Search "proselyte";
a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another.

I did look and that's correct. I took it to mean the same as apologist or even evangelist, but it really means Convert, or deconvert. I'm always happy to have a misapprehension corrected.

In the case of individuals [or groups of individuals] lacking the belief in gods AND once held contrary opinions - they would fit the description of proselytes if they also stated their reasons for doing so, in order to try and convince others in opposing positions to join with them.

Such actions of course, would not be because they hold the position of atheism, as atheism is simply lacking belief in gods. Why folk lack belief in gods and want to tell other folk their reasons for lacking belief in god, is more suited to positions of non-theist/anti-theist because of the established reasons going beyond the simple position of lacking belief in gods.

As an agnostic, one can state their reasons for lacking belief in god because that position does not disallow for this to occur.

Generally the problem of confusion surfaces when someone makes a statement about atheism which atheists retort with "That is not the position of atheism. Atheism is simply lacking belief in gods", which nullifies such statements about atheism, whilst allowing atheist to continue making statements which - by their own argument - are not the position of atheism.

Christians play that game too, when they say "that is not what a Christian is", and either way, I see no ethical value in the tactic.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

If it were that simple, the scientists in the video I linked in an earlier post, would not have got together and debated the subject of Simulation Theory.

Does that make you curious enough to actually watch the video?

Trees falling in forest where no ears are there to hear, does not mean no sound was made at the time the trees fell.
One can and will find evidence of sound having happened, even if the soundwaves themselves are no longer evident.

More on this can be read in the thread The Effect of Sound and The Universe

If indeed Simulation Theory were true, this in itself does not mean we should expect or assume the simulation to have been created by any mechanism we could easily understand with our current collected knowledge.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

If it were that simple, the scientists in the video I linked in an earlier post, would not have got together and debated the subject of Simulation Theory.

Does that make you curious enough to actually watch the video?

Trees falling in forest where no ears are there to hear, does not mean no sound was made at the time the trees fell.
One can and will find evidence of sound having happened, even if the soundwaves themselves are no longer evident.

More on this can be read in the thread The Effect of Sound and The Universe

If indeed Simulation Theory were true, this in itself does not mean we should expect or assume the simulation to have been created by any mechanism we could easily understand with our current collected knowledge.

Neither you nor I know why those bods got together to talk about simulation -theory. However you may be missing my point. It isn't to discredit simulation -theory either from a scientific or logical/philosophical point of view, especially as talk of a holographic universe causes a lot of reappraisal - but to suggest that you make some kind of relevant point rather than post a video you would like us to watch. It's tempting, but wearyingly often in the past opponents wouldn't debate on the forum but would give links, videos, books which we should research to convince ourselves.

The rule became, don't just post a video but make a case and use the video to back it up - in OW they shouldn't expect us to do their research for them. We had enough to do checking their claims.

Another thing is - where does that impact Theism? Ok I know - you want to Interpret vibrations as being some kind of Deist -god. Have you fun. But I'll leave that to the scientists if and when they produce it. Because none of that (even for you) has anything to do with organised religion which is a practical l matter and a possible cosmic mind related to no particular religion is of academic (if any) relevance.

Oh... I know belief even if some sorta god becomes a matter of personal investment and doubters like me have to be convinced. But for me it isn't even important and discussions about it are a bit of a bore, frankly.

[TRANSPONDER]

p.s I've been trying to resist this but I can't

"One can and will find evidence of sound having happened, even if the soundwaves themselves are no longer evident."

Let's see you validate the above statement. I can already hear it...soundwaves = sound. Do they? if there are no ears to hear them? Don't forget - this was (like the greenleaf paradox) considered to be (back in the unsophisticated 50's) a serious philosophical paradox. So far as I know, Zeno's is still valid, but I haven't seen them around for a while.Out of fashion or solved by others as I did? Blaize Pascal's wager was considered a really good apologetic. It's been pretty much trashed now, like the morality apologetic, once considered a surefire atheism -debunker.

[Tcg]

On the contrary, it is folk calling themselves atheists who are confusing;

Nah, there's nothing confusing about it. We, those over here, we, are the ones who don't move when someone says "We're gonna put you theists over here." Those who move over there are theists, those who don't are atheists. It's only confusing to those who have an invested reason to be confused. Given the widespread confusion we see, there's quite a few who have a commitment to be confused.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Why one lacks belief and wants to tell others those reasons, has nothing directly to do with atheism.

So close. I'll correct it for you:

"Why one lacks belief, has nothing directly to do with atheism.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Why one lacks belief and wants to tell others those reasons, has nothing directly to do with atheism.

So close. I'll correct it for you:

"Why one lacks belief, has nothing directly to do with atheism.


Tcg

Yes, other than atheism having atheists who want to preach about it (is why I'm here) and those who listen may come to come to unbelief or continue in it and thereby are atheist or atheists. In that respect atheism may have had something to do with not having belief.