Comments

  1. philhoenig says

    More prophecy talk! Woot!

    Playing Devil’s advocate, I’ve heard one semi-good reason for making prophecies look like gibberish to the point where they aren’t any good until after the event happens. If there’s one particular event that you want to warn about, you make it as clear as possible (i.e., give a precise date and location, and literally describe the event). Unfortunately you aren’t going to be believed on the basis of just that one prophecy, so to establish your bona fides you make a lot more describing what’s going to happen in the times leading up to it, but because they can’t be as clear as the Big Important Prophecy (Why not? Because reasons…) you make the lesser prophecies so cryptic that it’s not until after the event that people can look back and say “Of course! That’s what the prophet was talking about!”.

    In the latter half of the last century there were books on Nostradamus that posited that, and they pointed to a specific prophecy of his that said something like (forgive my unclear memory) two powers falling in something like October 1999. Obviously Nostradamus was warning us about Global Nuclear War between the two superpowers. I think that these days the interpretation is that he was a couple of years off and by “two powers” Nostradamus actually meant “two towers.”

    Another set of prophecies like that would be those of Malachi, who provided a long list of cryptic phrases meant to foretell the line of popes (and yet somehow missed all that trouble with anti-popes and the like). His last one specifically gave a name – Peter the Roman – and an event that would happen during his papacy – the destruction of Rome. Malachi’s prophecies are particularly relevant these days because according to it, that’s who Francis is. How is Pope Francis “Peter the Roman?” Dunno, but that’s the one we’re up to.

  2. Monocle Smile says

    Pantheism is boring-ass woo. That’s it. It’s stupidly simple word salad. I have yet to meet an interesting pantheist. And of course this dude Daniel goes off into druggie speak. At least he admitted (sort of) that he doesn’t care about truth, although I don’t believe him for a second when he says he’s “talked to behavioral ecologists.” The whole call was a bunch of pointless blabber and a few nuggets of bullshit.

    John of course ignored absolutely everything Matt and Martin said and decided to preach instead. This is what everyone from last week’s thread expected. The whole “beliefs count for nothing” and “there is only one truth” is garbage I assume comes directly from JW. John, since you will probably show up here…what are you trying to accomplish? Do you have a purpose? Why do you merely repeat yourself over and over and over again and ignore every response?

  3. Gino says

    1. Funny you should mention Monty Python, but does anyone else think John sounds just like the annoying bookshop patron from Contractual Obligation? I know it’s not quite on to mock a man for his accent, but coupled with the drivel he’s spewing, it’s pure comic gold.

  4. StonedRanger says

    @MS 3
    That’s all john talks about because that’s all his religion can give him to talk about. His last couple of posts he sounded like a sunday school teacher laying out his teaching plan. He has to understand that just about no one on this blog is going to give him any credibility. But he is required to proselytize anyway. Im glad Matt gave him exactly as much time as was required to send him packing. John, youre nothing but a dishonest little prick and everyone sees through your game. You know how I know that john? A little birdy told me. Whispered right in my ear he did. You believe me don’t you? No? Why not?

  5. says

    Excellent show, guys !
    It’s good to have Martin back, and sharper than ever.
    Grilled pantheist, anyone?
    I agree with StonedRanger #5 – John was given just the right amount of time. It’s a shame that some people apparently end up with so little self esteem that they have to get comfort from a cult.

  6. KiwiDaveo says

    2
    I know Phil you are using your two examples you give how complete BS the whole field of prophecies are but you have hit upon two which were never real prophecies but fakes, which is pretty common in the whole field.
    The supposed prediction of Nostradamus of 9/11 was completely made up after the attacks and spread via social media. The whole thing was faked, which is why the versions of it never source any of his actual published quatrains. I might add that his deliberately cryptic poems in 4 languages (Greek, Italian, Latin – the most dominate, and Provençal) were next to impossible to workout in the 16th century at the time he wrote them, and today, once translated via modern French then into English are just random words to all intents.

    As to the Prophecy of the Popes (which by the way are ascribed to Saint Malachy, a 12th-century Irish Bishop- not Malachi, a Jewish Prophetic author from the old testament), it was called a fake in the 1590s when it was produced. Its thought Cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli’s commissioned it for his bid for the papacy in the second conclave of 1590 to make it appear by electing him the other Cardinals would be carrying out gods plan. The 75th “predicted pope” was an exact match for the Cardinal. The author of the fake- a Benedictine monk called Arnold de Wyon was a friend of Simoncelli. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_de_Wyon
    Simoncelli didn’t gain the Papacy.

  7. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    Hello everyone.

    Matt said in his Youtube fulfilled prophecy video (at the end of part one), that the only way to win on this subject, is not to play.

    And that is exactly what he did.

    Fulfilled prophecy is difficult to understand so that Satan has an opportunity to deceive humanity with false religion, commerce and human government.

    God could easily prove the truth to humanity.

    Atheism is a belief with no proof. Beliefs count for nothing, and not knowing the truth has no bearing on the truth.

    Humanity will have to learn the truth, some will learn it later though.

    Nice to chat with you all.

    The Ad Hominem stuff is not going to help your beliefs to be true btw.

    🙂

  8. StonedRanger says

    Atheism is a lack of belief john. And if beliefs count for nothing then your beliefs count for nothing too. You keep trying to foist prophecy off on us and even you know its a so called difficult proof because that’s what you call them. You know why they are called difficult proofs? Because the difficulty comes from trying to convince others that your BS is true when you cant even show that. Give us a prophecy that gives an exact date that something exact is going to happen or has happened. You cant do that and you know it. If god could easily provide proof then why the hell doesn’t it? Satan has more power than god does according to you. You sure seem to know a lot about what god wants, but you cant back up what you say. Its easy for you to talk, because that’s all you got. Its not my belief that you are full of shit, its obvious to anyone who listens to you that you are. That’s why you keep calling in when you know youre not going to get anywhere. Its the same reason that you have failed for several weeks to answer anyones direct questions with direct answers. Neither Matt nor any of the other hosts have to give you the opportunity to proselytize on the show. So yes, they refuse to play your silly games when they recognize them. Atheism is a lack of belief. Just because you don’t understand that doesn’t make it our problem.

  9. adamah says

    A fave JW tactic is building questions based off of questionable presuppositions, e.g. “Why does God allow evil?”

    Any atheist worthy of the moniker ‘skeptic’ can see a huge problem there, since the question presupposes the existence of God!

    JWs operate on innumerable such presuppositions, deriving their influence over others by hop-scotching over such (in their mind, minor) details….

    As far as the prophecy thingie, here’s a great site that lists many of the failed doomsday predictions, from the earliest-recorded (2,800 BCE) to more-recent (eg Millerites, but also the JWs and their constant harping on Armageddon).

    http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

    As Ecclestiastes correctly states, “there is nothing new under the Sun” (at least, if you’re willing to forget all about nuclear energy, computers, aircraft, automobiles, even solar energy technologies, etc). Humans will capitalize upon the anxiety of others in an attempt to bolster their own egos as a means to deal with uncertainty.

    It strikes me as incredibly narcissistic ego-driven thinking to view oneself as a foot soldier on the triumphant side in the battle for “Universal Sovereignty” (God vs Satan), enjoying insider information that grants one a front-row seat at this, the most pivotal time in the history of the Universe when it’s all coming to a climax! What luck to live NOW, and not eg in the Middle Ages as some poor cobbler!

    Talk about a colossal snow job that plays directly to the ego!

    But as the Ancient Greek philosopher P.T. Barnum correctly stated, “A sucker is born every minute”.

    I cannot help but imagine John as a just another anonymous face in the crowd, a polite (but extremely boring and repressed) chap who lives a Walter Mittyesque existence of living in a shared fantasy World (akin to D&D, except it’s a slightly-more acceptable for adults since JWs operate under the cloak of Xianity).

    In the name of protecting his ‘faith’, he’s blissfully immune from all disconfirmatory evidence, and his beliefs are bolstered and even encouraged under the “freedom of religion” doctrine.

    Misguided individuals like John who waste their lives chasing a pipe dream of a “paradise Earth in the New System” are the price society pays for freedom of thought (and from the sound of it, John doesn’t exactly seem the type to become a theoretical physicist to solve the mystery of gravity, etc).

  10. adamah says

    Stone Ranger said:

    Atheism is a lack of belief john.

    Yup.

    Apparently John is blissfully unaware that in rationalist thinking, the party making the claim bears the ‘burden of proof’, the responsibility to demonstrate and provide compelling evidence for why we should accept their claim as our belief.

    In fact, the skeptical listener has the responsibility to reject any and all such claims until sufficient evidence is presented.

    e.g. if I propose the existence of magical pixies under the intersections which control the stop lights and crosswalks, I bear the burden to present supportive evidence that supports WHY it’s rational to believe in said pixies.

    And until I DO, the rational listener has the responsibility to reject my claim, in essence telling me to go pound sand….

  11. says

    @9

    The Ad Hominem stuff is not going to help your beliefs to be true btw.

    I couldn’t seem to find any ad hominems. An ad hominem isn’t whenever someone uses an insult.

    “You’re wrong because you’re a JW” is an ad hominem.

    “You’re wrong because [insert rebuttal]. That’s why I think you’re an idiot” is not.

  12. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    12, You have to prove that life can come from non living matter by chance. And also that energy can turn into physical by chance.

  13. Monocle Smile says

    John, nobody on this thread or on the show believes the crap you posted in comment 16 and neither one of those things is tied to atheism. What you are doing now is called “lying.” You have no reason to think that any of us accept those claims.

  14. Monocle Smile says

    Furthermore, you have set up the dumbest argument from ignorance in the book. This is kindergarten nonsense. “You don’t have every answer to every question, therefore god.”

  15. KiwiDaveo says

    9.

    John,
    You know Matt is using a Game analogy to sum up his presentation on Prophecy?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiS4WP48fmY&index=16&list=PL8U_Qmq9oNY4I2RAT94zWGS3yo7Ma3QKI
    He starts talking about coin tossing, the lottery, stock market, horse racing, before the phrase ” or know the one true path to the afterlife” at 30:30 of a 31:09 talk. As these are all games of chance, the phrases “winning” and ” not playing” mean that just that prophecy doesn’t prove beliefs even if the prophecy turned out to be correct.
    That you have listened to this comprehensive explanation of why prophecy can’t be used as proof of any belief system and took only that Matt doesn’t want listen to your JW woo because he “don’t want to play” says far more about your cognitive processes than Matt’s.

  16. StonedRanger says

    John @13,16,17,18,19
    You’ve proved my point quite nicely, thank you. You wouldn’t know an ad hominem if it stabbed you in the eye.

  17. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To JohnFromLONDONuk:
    You say that it is impossible for you to be wrong, and that no amount of hypothetical future evidence could ever change your mind. You do not meet my minimum criterion for reasonable conversation. You are not worth my time, and I’m not feeling like beating my head against a wall right now. And if it is true that you’re just here as an easy way to meet your preaching time requirements, then I hope that you are banned.

  18. philhoenig says

    @KiwiDaveo #8: In that case, lacking any good evidence I can’t even think of a semi-good reason for not just trying to be as clear as possible when making prophecies.

    I must admit I’m kind of interested in John’s views on why prophecies have to be hard, or whatever it was that he called them. I suspect it will involve some attribute that he claims God has, which doesn’t really work considering that John is yet to provide evidence of a God and indeed introduced prophecies into the conversation as the best such evidence. At best, this circular reasoning can only provide a consistent hypothesis without any evidence.

    But then again maybe John’s explanation won’t involve God. What do I know? I’m not a prophet.

  19. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    25. Hi. If God gave irrefutable evidence now, in this system, Satan would say that God had not given him a chance to prove his point.

    Satan is being kept alive so that the issue of universal sovereignty can be resolved.

    The small amount of difficult to understand proof, is for those seeking the truth now, in this system. For everyone else, they will learn the truth in the new paradise on Earth system and once the dead have been brought back to life.

    Humanity’s knowing the truth in this system is not the most important issue at the moment. They will learn the truth later.

    Everyone will have to learn the truth, but even once they know the truth, it still counts for nothing. Satan knows the truth and God is going to kill him.

  20. KiwiDaveo says

    25.
    Phil,

    My understanding of JW doctrine is that its a mid 19th Century take on the subset of Christianity known as Gnosism. There are hidden meanings (which the leaders who found out by receiving divine revelations) to parts of the bible which with the correct oversight can be shown only to the attendees of the faith.
    Hence why John refers to things being “hard”, but then won’t go into any detailed discussion.
    Basically they have to indoctrinate a world view then you find out the truth. The organization is not interested in open dialog with outsiders.
    As an example, I have a Uncle who is very active in the Catholic church as a lay person. He had even completed a Catholic theological degree and was heavily involved in his local church organization. Unlike most people, when the JWs called round he would invite them for a chat. After like the third time of discussions, the local JW leadership found out what was going on and JWs were banned from having anything to do with him as they were worried about theological pollution.

    I really doubt John will move beyond his limited vague outlines of his faith in this open field.

  21. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    28. The truth is like a lion, it can defend itself.

    The greatest friend of truth is time.

  22. Andrew EC says

    In last week’s thread, someone speculated that John the Jehovah’s Witness is fulfilling his (otherwise onerous) proselytizing burden by calling in to the Atheist Experience instead of going door-to-door. After three weeks of incoherent proselytizing, that rings true to me, and argues pretty strongly in favor of hanging up on him from here on out.

  23. Monocle Smile says

    John, you might as well be speaking Klingon. I have no clue what you’re trying to say at this point and your responses to my posts are non sequiturs. EL is right.

  24. favog says

    “If God gave irrefutable evidence now, in this system, Satan would say that God had not given him a chance to prove his point.” … hypothetically allowing for both parties to exist, so what? If the evidence for one side is that much of a lock, why should anyone take the other side seriously? If Satan’s calling in with nonsense, then God should follow Matt’s example — “Satan, you’re done.” [Click].

  25. adamah says

    John said:

    “12, You have to prove that life can come from non living matter by chance. And also that energy can turn into physical by chance.”

    First show me exactly WHERE I made that claim; once you do, we’ll get into the topic of ‘abiogenesis’ (that’s the name of the process, btw).

    But don’t waste too much time looking for it, since I know for a fact I never made such a claim in this thread; therefore, I bear no ‘burden of proof’ and hence don’t need to explain it to you.

    (Oh, on your 2nd statement, apparently you’re unaware that matter and energy are readily interconvertible: that was the very point of Einstein’s famous “E=mc^2” equation, a property of both that has been experimentally verified. Take a basic physics course to learn more….).

    But even more importantly, I’m not interested in playing hop-scotch with you, haphazardly leaping from one topic to the next without fully exploring the one at hand until it’s exhausted.

    We’re currently discussing the topic of ‘fulfillment of prophecy’, but I see you’ve already conceded you don’t have a case to justify your beliefs based on much more than ‘faith’.

    I see you recently brought up “universal sovereignty”, so let’s stick to that one for now?

    John, please answer this question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, followed by your explanation, if desired.

    If God is omniscient and knows all (including the future), is it reasonable for Him to proceed with creating other beings, knowing fully well that one would only question His authority to rule?

    Now that seems like a pretty MAJOR oversight, God failing to foresee that everything He created wasn’t in fact “perfect” but contained a pretty huge ‘flaw’ that led to the current “evil system of things”.

    So pick your poison, admitting either that Satan IS in fact ‘perfect’, or admitting that your God ISN’T ‘perfect’.

    You cannot have it both ways, since a truly ‘perfect’ God cannot produce imperfect creations and then disavow
    all blame and responsibility. As the old Germanic saying goes, “It’s a poor craftsmen indeed who blames his tools (much less his crafts!) rather than admitting he’s not as great a craftsman as he seems to think he is”.

    Jasper of Maine said:

    You’re wrong because you’re a JW” is an ad hominem.

    Uh, no it’s not.

    It’s a conclusion not supported by the premise, since being a JW isn’t a guarantee that they’re wrong on ALL issues.

    It isn’t an insult directed against the person, either: millions of people actually pride themselves on being JWs, so it’s not exactly an insult…. It’s an observation.

    Jasper said:

    “You’re wrong because [insert rebuttal]. That’s why I think you’re an idiot” is not.

    Jasper, although you’re brighter than the average village idiot to have figured out that God doesn’t exist, you mean to tell me you still haven’t figured out that ‘implied (non-stated) conclusions’ exist?

    Omg! Did you fall asleep during your informal logic course on the first day when the definitions were given?

    Ok, so let’s review basic logic!

    By convention, a ‘conclusion’ is required to form an ‘argument’ (whether fallacious or sound/cogent).

    However, the conclusion can be either:

    1) explicitly stated (the red flag being a word like, “Therefore…”) or,

    2) implied.

    The textbook example of an implied argument (i.e. one where the conclusion is not stated) is the classic bumper-sticker slogan, “Guns don’t kill people: people kill people.”

    The stated premise is literally true, but the slogan is intended to function as an argument since the reader is expected to construct (infer) the desired conclusion for themselves.

    (In the example above, the conclusion would be something along the lines of, “Therefore, don’t pass gun-control legislation”.)

    Implied conclusions and arguments are often more powerful than simply stating them outright, since many people have anti-authoritarian issues and resist being told what to do or think.

    Now, apply that same line of thinking to an insult (aka a ‘simple ad hom’): no reasonable person insults another in order to support their position, e.g.:

    “You’re an idiot, John!

    Therefore, we should accept your position!”

    The audience isn’t assumed to be comprised of idiots, and they reasonably assume an insult is meant to undermine the opponent’s position, and not serve as an endorsement.

    Now, isn’t that so obvious as to elicit a durrrr? What kind of fools do you take the audience for?!?

    It’s absolutely absurd to suggest any other than the facts that insults are the weakest form of an argument imaginable, just as it would be absurd to deny it creates a fallacious argument (at least, with a straight face).

    I know, I know: you really want to keep your silly internet meme alive as long as possible, since you so enjoy a nice spleen-venting and really want to continue to unfurl your weak-minded defense when called on the carpet for throwing out insults…

    Sorry, but the fact is your premise that John is an idiot actually is a conclusion, and hence requires supportive evidence of its own (e.g the results of John’s IQ tests, etc).

    Now, if you care to offer a cogent counter-argument as to what constitutes an ‘ad hom’, I’m all ears.

    But on this issue, I suspect you’re more than a bit like John than you’d care to admit, since you don’t want reason to get in the way of your emotional needs and desires.

    Not very rational, dude….

  26. Monocle Smile says

    Adam, how is it that you consistently get the ad hominem fallacy completely wrong? You get it wrong in the same way over and over and over again. And of course, you are always a massive asshole about it, too. Jasper is a regular insightful contributor, but you can’t help but be pretentious and douchey even though you’re wrong. I was okay with you contributing because you’re a former JW and can provide some insight into John from London, but you need to fuck off.

  27. Monocle Smile says

    @Adam
    For the record:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One
    Example 9 does not contain an insult, but is still ad hominem. You’re tied up in this erroneous notion of “insult” when an ad hominem fallacy does not need to be an actual insult.

    I also find it ironic that the most insufferable dickhead in the blog’s recent history loses his shit when it comes to insults. You freak out and label arguments (and everything that anyone says) fallacious when any insult is uttered at any point, even when it’s irrelevant to the argument at hand. Especially when it’s unrelated to the argument at hand. You put words in the mouths of others and crow your personal superiority to the heavens. You’re wrong AND you’re an asshole.

  28. Gabriel TB says

    In the video they say that religion has caused people to “set the bar too high” in terms of what their “purpose” should be. Can some atheist give an example of what a realistic “purpose” should be?

  29. says

    JohnFromLONDONuk says
    @27

    Hi. If God gave irrefutable evidence now, in this system, Satan would say that God had not given him a chance to prove his point.

    Either your god is infallible and omnipotent and can convince everyone of this truth or his powers are limited and he’s not the god you are selling us. It’s interesting that even in your hypothetical examples about your god, you make his powers limited and easily circumvented.

  30. Conversion Tube says

    John’s #26 response to #21 shows he doesn’t even understand the point you were making in quotes.

  31. Conversion Tube says

    John you keep speaking about truth. I wonder what you would say about this video. It may be tough to understand it all. I had to rewind and relisten a few times and study the definitions of some terms to try and internalize what was actually being said. I’ve taken a small introductory course online to Philosophy but this guy I think has the definition of truth covered.

    Perhaps truth is like a lion.

    We know many truths, it’s why we don’t get hit by a speeding bus.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jLJczkOU44&w=853&h=480%5D

  32. kudlak says

    John, what would be “irrefutable” evidence of God? Even if something showed up and was able to convince you that it was God how would you rule out the possibility that it’s either lying, mistaken, created to believe it was God, or some other possibility?

  33. ironchops says

    Hi John,
    Please help me to understand
    1. Do you know the truth?
    2. How did you figure it out?
    3. Can you help me to know? I am seeking.
    4. Where is this knowledge found?
    5. If knowing the truth now doesn’t matter than why bother with any of this?

  34. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    33. Hi. God has the ability to look into the future but chooses not to so that an individual’s privacy is kept.

  35. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    36. Hi. This is the only way to resolve the issue. If God killed him straight away, others may accuse God of being a dictator.

  36. says

    @44
    So you are saying that god is incapable of making an argument that people would believe which makes him something other than omnipotent and omniscient. You cannot have it both ways. Your god cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing (which would allow him to make an irrefutable argument that no mere fallen angel could refute) or he is not a god.

    You might also ask yourself if you’d accept any of your arguments if they were put forth as proof of other people’s gods.

  37. adamah says

    33. Hi. God has the ability to look into the future but chooses not to so that an individual’s privacy is kept.

    Having been raised in a JW environment, I suspect you actually meant to say, “God chooses not to look into the future so as not to interfere with the individual’s free will“.

    (That’s usually the line given to explain why God didn’t make Adam and Eve as robots who had to obey and worship and serve him: it wouldn’t be sporting to FORCE them to do all of that: they NEED the ability to disobey Him!)

    Problem with your eisegetical non-scripturally-derived hypothesis is, if God was all-knowing in the past when the OT scriptures claiming His omniscience were written, how does God consciously forget the future He once apparently knew?

    Does God carry a large mallet about, just so He can knock himself in the head so He experiences concussion-induced amnesia and blackouts?

    🙂

    For even if there’s limits to what God knows (or He intentionally chooses not to know), it doesn’t change the fact you’re admitting He’s not omniscient.

    Therefore, you’re preaching a message that goes against what the Bible actually says, so you’re now spreading false teachings based on your errant Biblical interpretation (a bit like Christendom there, no?)

    36. Hi. This is the only way to resolve the issue. If God killed him straight away, others may accuse God of being a dictator.

    Of course Jehovah’s NOT a dictator, since only an egomaniacal dictator would place humans in a situation where they must choose to worship Him or die (rather than getting to enjoy eternal life on a paradise Earth, whiling away eternity to frolic with tamed lions and tigers).

    See, one of the many logical problems with the ‘Universal Sovereignty hypothesis’ is that it most definitely interferes with human ‘free will’, since “worship me or die!” comes nowhere close to constituting a situation that can be characterized as a ‘free will’ choice.

    The term ‘free will’ is quite simple: ‘free’ suggests choosing between alternatives where the choice is free from the influence or interference of others (including the participants), being free of consequences.

    (Think of choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream: assuming both are equally free from consequences (i.e. you’re not allergic to either one), that’s truly a ‘free will’ choice. ‘Will’ means the ability to choose based on one’s desires.)

    So If God truly wanted to compete with Satan in a fair manner (so as to give Satan a fair shake), God could set up a parallel Universe, then let Satan take the helm to show his stuff in his Universe, with God competing in His. Neither group would be aware of the existence of the other, so that would constitute a fair test.

    Another major problem is God has heavily tampered with (what is according to JW doctrine) Satan’s turn at calling the shots on Earth.

    If anyone else actually interfered with the trial run to the extent that God has (eg by commissioning humans to write His Holy Word, sending Jesus to Earth to preach His message, sending JWs to knock on doors, etc), they’d rightly be accused of biasing the outcome, if not outright jury-tampering.

    According to JW doctrine, Satan is to be confined for 1000 yrs to prevent his tampering with God’s turn. So why is God allowed to interfere with Satan’s turn, but Satan cannot interfere with God’s turn? I’m calling foul!

    Another problem with USH is, who gets to decide if Satan’s way was better? Who gets to serve as the jury? Is it by a show of hand of Humans?

    Do animals get to vote (after all, as demonstrated by the serpent in the Garden of Eden, animals are held responsible for their ‘sins’: snakie was condemned to have his limbs confiscated and to suffer major head-bruising as humans try to kill him, thanks to God putting enmity between them and humanity).

    And what about all the supposedly ‘evil people’ who are to be killed in Armageddon: do they get a vote, too?

    They’re likely to vote for Satan, since God is planning to kill them!

    In criminal law, defendants are entitled to a trial BEFORE they are put to death. But there’s a problem in JW theology with the sequence of events, since you’re claiming Satan is killed even after massive interference by God occurs, and thanks to Divine foreknowledge, the outcome has already been decided and prophecized!

    Satan should insist on a change of venue, since he cannot reasonably get a fair shake on Earth or in Heaven, with God serving as the Judge, Jury, and executioner who’s already made up his mind on the outcome!

    Even leaping over the earlier issue of a perfect God’s apparent creation of imperfect beings, obviously the USH has a few massive holes in its logic….

  38. kudlak says

    John #51
    How can God choose what he doesn’t want to know? Isn’t he automatically tuned in to all knowledge? If he’s turning off his cameras every now and then then he really can’t me making any definite predictions about the future as he doesn’t have all information, right?

    Regarding Satan, he can read the Bible like anyone else, so what’s to prevent him from coming up with a plan that puts him on top?

  39. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    41.
    &
    53.

    1. I know some truth but not all truth.
    2. Via the Bible’s fulfilled prophecy and through observation of energy being slowed down into physical.
    3. Yes.
    4. The Bible.
    5. Knowing the truth now helps us get through this Satanically run system (False religion, commerce and human government) and also accurate knowledge can lead to everlasting life on paradise Earth.

    Knowing the truth is not as important as being obedient to God. Satan knows the truth and God is going to kill him.

    Also at the end of the 1000 years rule of God’s government, many perfect humans will be mislead by Satan and will be killed.

    Hope that all of that makes sense to you.

  40. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    God looked into the future and saw Judas betray Jesus. This did not affect the freewill of Judas.

  41. says

    @51

    God chooses not to be all knowing.

    That sounds a lot like plausible deniability which I find weaselly in humans and downright unethical in a supreme being who can make a choice to damn me to eternal torment. As adamah points out above, the god you’ve described chooses to withhold information that allows people to make an informed decision. There is no proof of any gods and many of the religions humans have practiced over time are specific about people choosing their religion to the exclusion of all others to reap the benefits in a presumed afterlife.

    How do I know if I should practice Shinto or Islam or Judaism or Wicca or Christianity? And then which sect? A benevolent god or gods couldn’t punish me for finding no compelling evidence for any of them and thus rejecting them all, but the god you describe would punish me to eternal torment for not knowing which sect of which religion is the approved one. And how about all the people born before your religion was even established or in areas where no one has ever practiced the religion?

    The abrahamic religions relish ignorance. The garden of eden is the story of fear of learning and understanding. That is not free will. Withholding knowledge from people is a form of oppression. Refusing to use your knowledge to help people under your care is abuse. Even if your god exists, I would have no interest in worshiping him.

  42. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    56. Most humans will be brought back to life from hell (place of non existence) and be given a chance to live forever on Earth.

    This system now is Satanically run, hence Satan has been given every opportunity to try everything to prove his take on universal sovereignty.

  43. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    Oh and 56…… We chose not to listen to radio waves via a radio, but they are still there. We have the ability but chose not to use it.

  44. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    59. God has allowed suffering, but has not caused suffering.

    Torture forever is a Christendom lie. Jesus went to hell for part of 3 days.

    When we die we are non existent.

  45. kudlak says

    John
    So, if hell is non-existence, then there is nothing to “bring back”. If you destroy the only copy you have of something then you have to recreate it in order to bring it back, and I’m not sure if a recreation is the same thing. I’m fuzzy on what you mean by “nonexistance” then.

    Yes, but supposedly God chooses what he will miss to such accuracy as to not miss anything important to his plans, which would imply that he knows that he isn’t missing anything that he wants to know about, right? How is that possible?

  46. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    64. We are a mixture of atoms and energy. God will use different atoms and different energy to remake humans, but all previous details and knowledge will be the same.

    We change atoms via food.

    All there is, is the memory of dead humans, and from that blueprint they will be remade by God. Some will die a second death though.

    I’m not sure if i understand you second point.

    You can all add me on the skype thing if you want to btw.

  47. says

    @JohnFromLONDONuk
    I’m not going to continue to reply to your special pleading arguments but I do find this claim of yours really interesting:

    Knowing the truth is not as important as being obedient to God.

    This is a truly terrifying view of the universe. To place obedience above understanding is to support a sort of universal fascism. In fact, I would place obedience low on my list of values in any area of life. Respect and/or love are things to be earned and maintained. This is true of parents, partners, leaders, countries and, should they turn out to be real, gods. Once again, the god you describes is not someone I would ever care to associate myself with.

  48. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    68. Everyone will HAVE to know the truth, including the dead who will be brought back to life and will be taught the truth.

    Knowing the truth, as everyone will, is not as important as obedience to God. Satan knows the truth and he will be killed.

  49. says

    @69
    So god is going to bring me back to life just so I can be killed again because I didn’t obey him even though I had no evidence of his existence? I am supposed to obey someone who has never spoken to me or interacted with me in any way that I can detect and whose followers all seem to have a different idea of what he wants? That seems reasonable.

  50. kudlak says

    John
    They wouldn’t be the same, but copies, right? What would be the point of making a copy of dead people?
    The second part is that God would need to know when to tune out so as not to spoil it for himself, and when to tune in so that he doesn’t miss anything important, both of which would require knowledge of what’s in those gaps. Therefore, he couldn’t be selectively tuning out stuff unless he knew what he was tuning out, unless he chooses to be ignorant of many things that could affect his plans very negatively, thus making his capacity for predicting the future very suspect.

  51. kudlak says

    What do you mean by “taught” the truth? They tried to teach me that religion was true, but they didn’t have any evidence to convince me. If you’re saying that God will show himself to me, how could I tell that it isn’t some alien lying to me, an illusion, or something else that isn’t actually God? If I have no choice but to believe aren’t I just being programmed?

  52. kudlak says

    How does God know that Satan will be killed when you’ve stated that there are gaps in God’s knowledge where Satan could be arranging things so that he isn’t killed?

  53. kudlak says

    You stated that you “know some truth but not all truth”. You could be wrong about any, or all the things you’ve stated here then, right?

  54. adamah says

    @GabrielTB asked:

    In the video they say that religion has caused people to “set the bar too high” in terms of what their “purpose” should be.

    Can some atheist give an example of what a realistic “purpose” should be?

    As this current thread demonstrates quite well, here we have John worrying about Universal Sovereignty issues that are “well above his pay grade” as a Homo sapien, and worse yet, it’s an issue for which not even a shred of evidence exists to support it.

    JWs have died in the name of their faith, fully expecting they’d be resurrected into a paradise Earth (JWs died in Nazi concentration camps, although unlike the Jews, they could escape death simply by disavowing their religious beliefs: very few did, and died a preventable death).

    So if that’s not an example of “setting the bar” too high, then I don’t know what could possibly be any higher….

    And although JWs currently are non-violent, the same basic dynamic that drives JWs (namely, a blind obedience to God) is also what fuels extremist Islamists to kill and die as martyrs in the name of Allah. They also similarly believe in a better existence awaiting them on the other side, in their case believing a heavenly reward of 70 virgins awaits them, a bevy of beauties to feed them grapes by hand for an eternity.

    As far as what “purpose” atheists profess, that’s basically asking what the meaning of life is, and the answer will vary amongst atheists (depending on their values).

    I think James Taylor hit the nail on the head when he sang, “the meaning of life is to enjoy the passage of time”, but some find fulfillment and purpose in educating others (including their children), or helping fellow humans better their lives (secular humanist), etc.

    I think it’s fair to say that the purpose of life is to discover its purpose for yourself (and ideally, by using an evidence-based approach), since there’s no “one size fits all” answer to the question (and yes, that answer is a tad tautological, but “it is what it is”. And at least it’s not grasping at straws by worrying about stuff you cannot ever possibly claim to know as certainty in light of the absence of any actual evidence).

  55. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    70. Once you know the truth, you can do as you want.

    Yes some will be killed after they have been brought back to life and have learned the truth.

  56. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    71. You will be a copy of yourself in one years because your cells are making new ones.

  57. says

    JohnFromLONDONuk, have you ever considered that your beliefs might be wrong? For instance, how do you know that Satan hasn’t lead you into the JW church and that all of the “truth” you’ve learned is nothing but lies? How could you tell? Maybe it’s Islam that is the “truth” or maybe Catholicism or Mormonism or maybe no god at all. What if a Mormon comes to this blog and starts saying “I know the truth of God’s word. God revealed prophesy in the Book Of Mormon is the bedrock of my belief, you just need to listen to God and reject Satan.”? What would you say to them?

  58. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Quoting John:
    I will say this.

    Knowing the truth is not as important as being obedient to God. Satan knows the truth and God is going to kill him.

    Your god might be able to make me suffer, torture me, kill me, but he will never break me. I am no one’s slave. I am not a slave to your (mythical) celestial tyrant.

    In my country, we have some mottos:
    Give me liberty, or give me death!
    Live free or die

    If Stargate SG-1 has taught me anything, the proper response to being confronted with evil gods is not to bow down and worship, but to blow them up. Nuke god!

    PS: To any moderators here, I humbly suggest that you consider banning this guy from the blog. He’s just repeating himself, and apparently just using this place as a way to meet his preaching time requirements while avoiding actual intellectual engagement, which I would call dishonesty. Arguably, that makes it also qualify as as trolling (intentional trolling or not).

  59. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    81. If a friend says that they like ice cream, and they wanted proof, you could get proof via an MRI scanner.

    If the next day they said they did not like apples, and you ask for proof, they would not be friends for long.

    Fulfilled prophecy is the proof, the rest is taken as truth based on friendship and trust.

    If someone does not learn the truth, they will learn it later. Then they can make an informed decision.

  60. says

    @85 Also, what kind of friend in God would you be to us if you failed to answer the questions of those who do not yet know the truth? Is Satan binding your lips (or fingers, as it were)?

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I guess I’m in a mood for butting my head against the wall now.

    To JohnFromLONDONuk
    And if that same ice-cream friend said that they had a nuclear missile in their backyard, I would not believe them. I would probably think that they’re lying, some form of joke. Clinical insanity is also an option. I would demand evidence. I would demand evidence because I have a lot of background knowledge that most people do not have nuclear missiles in their backyard, so much evidence that I can already safely and reasonably conclude that this person does not have a nuclear missile in their backyard before they even say anything. Then, I can weigh their personal “eye-witness” testimony against my massive background knowledge, and the eye-witness testimony comes up short.

    And your fulfilled prophesy is garbage.

    Also:

    Hi. If God gave irrefutable evidence now, in this system, Satan would say that God had not given him a chance to prove his point.

    And why should god care if Satan doesn’t have a chance to convince people with his lies? That’s not an answer. Why doesn’t Jesus just pop down into New York Times Square, heal some amputees, and promise to come back every week from then on and heal some amputees and perform other miracles? There’s plenty of confusion in the world, and he could solve all of that by choosing to stop hiding. But your god continues to hide. In fact, your god is hiding so well that it’s almost as if it wasn’t there at all.

    Of course, you’ve given a preemptive answer to some of these points. It’s not about making an informed decision based on the facts. It’s about obedience. You have a slave mentality. I do not. “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”

  62. adamah says

    Marnie said:

    This is true of parents, partners, leaders, countries and, should they turn out to be real, gods. Once again, the god you describe is not someone I would ever care to associate myself with.

    Well, in Jehovah’s defense, let me just point out that God’s not nearly as toxic or abrasive to be around as Kim Jong Ill (or even that Donald Trump guy! A few minutes around him, and I’m ready to go completely unhinged, too)!

    🙂

    Marnie asked:

    So god is going to bring me back to life just so I can be killed again because I didn’t obey him even though I had no evidence of his existence?

    Close, but not quite.

    JW theology holds those destroyed at Armageddon face eternal death, with no further hope of a resurrection; however, those who died 5 minutes before commencement of Armageddon will be resurrected and given a 2nd chance at eternal life (whether they were atheists or JWs alike).

    So let’s see if I’ve got this straight:

    Those atheists who had no opportunity to, in Marnie’s words, “obey someone who has never spoken to me or interacted with me in any way that I can detect” are NOT given a resurrection if destroyed at Armageddon, whereas an atheist who had the fortune to die of a heart attack just minutes before Armageddon started IS given a resurrection into the New System, where they’ll be given an opportunity to observe first-hand evidence of God’s existence for themselves!

    What happened to Jesus’ words to Doubting Thomas, found in John 20:29, demonstrating the value of faith (in of all things, a belief in Jesus’ resurrection)?

    Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen (evidence) and yet have believed.”

    Apparently Jesus forgot to mention that cursed are those who weren’t provided evidence, and hence didn’t believe, unless they died before Armageddon!

    That non-biblically-based JW belief seems perfectly logical (not to mention, fair): NOT.

    It partly explains why JWs occasionally make poor “life or death” decisions, at times killing their own children in the hopes of earning everlasting life for them, or refusing a life-saving blood transfusion when death is otherwise preventable.

    PS someone ask John whether the resurrected ones will be able to enjoy sexual relations in the New System…

    (Spoiler Alert : the answer is “NO”, but I’ll leave it to him to explain the rationale.)

  63. says

    @94 adamah

    Well, in Jehovah’s defense, let me just point out that God’s not nearly as toxic or abrasive to be around as Kim Jong Ill (or even that Donald Trump guy! A few minutes around him, and I’m ready to go completely unhinged, too)!

    I don’t know, if I’m going from the stories of the bible, there’s plenty of genocide, slavery, misogyny and rape done in the name of appeasing that god so that’s not really a glowing endorsement.

    I am pretty fine with the idea that the lights go out when I die and I’m not going to squander this life worrying about trying to figure out how to get on the eternal-life short-list of which there is no evidence. Also, eternal life doesn’t really sound appealing (hasn’t anyone seen Highlander?) but a sexless eternity sounds downright tedious.

  64. Alumriel says

    I find John’s reasoning in his responses here to be mystifying:
    2. How did you figure it out?
    4. Where is this knowledge found?

    2. Via the Bible’s fulfilled prophecy and through observation of energy being slowed down into physical.
    4. The Bible.

    So the truth is found in the Bible, but the Bible is found to be true by using the Bible? Is that not circular reasoning? Or am I missing something?

  65. JohnFromLONDONuk says

    95. I,m not sure where that chap is getting his info from.

    There will be sex in the new system.

    Anyways…. some will learn the truth later, they can make up their mind about it then, when they have all the facts.

  66. says

    @98
    I’m getting the feeling that, much like Joseph Smith’s “golden plates,” a lot of JW doctrine is just biblical fanfic; borrowing heavily from the source material but being rewritten as needed to suit the writer’s personal desires. Of course, when someone writes Doctor Who fanfic, they don’t come knocking at my door to let me know Cybermen are running things right now and I need to get right with my invisible, undetectable, silent timelord if I want to spend eternity traveling through space and time in a police box.

  67. adamah says

    John said:

    95. I’m not sure where that chap is getting his info from.
    There will be sex in the new system.

    Pay closer attention, John, since the question was specifically about if those who’ve been resurrected will be allowed to have sex in the ‘New System’.

    And since demographers estimate that 100 billion people have once lived and are now dead, the resurrected dead will greatly outnumber the living survivors (although the World’s population is currently estimated at just over 7 billion, per JW doctrine, the great-majority of the Worldly will be wiped out at Armageddon: therefore the ‘resurrected to survivor’ ratio is going to be much greater than 12:1).

    So whether the resurrected are allowed to have sex or not is not an insignificant matter (at least to them, unless living an eternity as a sexless eunuch is an appealing option for some).
    John, as far as my source of information, have you heard of a book called “the Bible”?

    You’re clearly unaware of your own JW teachings, which are based on Jesus’ words found in Luke 20:34-36:

    “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die any more, for they are like the angels, and they are Gods children by being children of the resurrection.”

    Are you unfamiliar with that particular verse?

    John said:

    Anyways…. some will learn the truth later, they can make up their mind about it then, when they have all the facts.

    Hmmm, that’s a curious statement, since that’s exactly what most skeptical atheists are doing: awaiting acceptance of a belief until AFTER sufficient evidence is presented to them to adopt it.

    However, Doubting Thomas was ridiculed by Jesus for demanding such proof, since Jesus’ rebuking words in John 20 suggested those who demanded proof before believing are fools, instead endorsing acceptance based on childlike blind faith.

    John, does the truth ever change, i.e. is the truth subject to interpretative error?

    Or is the truth immutable?

  68. ironchops says

    Hi John,
    Thanks for answering my questions. It all makes sense now. It takes a load off my mind to know that I will have a second chance to figure this all out.

  69. says

    They do nor have fulfilled prophecy and they killed each other in WW2.

    How do you know they don’t have fulfilled prophecy? They claim they do, just like you do. Are we to simply not believe them and believe you instead? There must be some way of determining who has the truth. Also, a lot of them living now didn’t kill each other during WW2 and aren’t you as much of a fallen sinner as any of them?

  70. says

    Most will learn the truth when brought back to life.

    So, God is going to bring us back to life, just so we can “learn the truth” about how we wouldn’t buy some ridiculous JW bullshit and so God can send to hell to be tortured by his handyman? Why doesn’t God just let our souls rest in peace?

  71. kudlak says

    John
    Which prophecies have been proven to have been fulfilled?

    Establishing unsubstantiated trust is exactly how con artists operate, isn’t it?

  72. kudlak says

    John
    Where did God say that he will Satan and why isn’t what you believe a part of religion?

  73. says

    The torture thing is a Christendom lie.

    Really? What will happen to those who reject God when they are brought back to life? Why should anybody spend their life on earth doing something like attending a JW church and believing in their “truth”?

  74. adamah says

    Martin789 asks:

    Why would there be sex? what is the point?

    Good point, esp. when there’s ~100 billion living-dead zombies presumably taking up space and resources (just imagine all the wool they’d use knitting sweaters, and the saltpeter consumed by the handful just to suppress their natural sexual drives).

    And to address COBs question above, since the survivors of Armaggedon supposedly are allowed to engage in sexual relations with their spouse to have large families (where in turn their children also are allowed to marry and reproduce), that may serve as some extra inducement to become a JW now, as a reward. Although it’s no guarantee of survival in Armageddon, becoming a JW is the most-obvious way to increase the chances of not become road-kill during Armageddon and earn eternal life on a paradisal Earth (vs facing eternal non-existence due to the wrath of Jehovah).

    (BTW, JWs don’t believe in Hell, as they believe in the scripture that says, “the dead are conscious of nothing.”)

    Of course, most JWs fail to consider the ramifications and problems that even a small percentage of eternally-living organisms being allowed to reproduce unchecked would cause (and since they shun education, they’re unlikely to have taken a course in biological population dynamics, so remain ignorant of what happens in the natural World when, e.g. the predator of a given species disappears: a population explosion explosion results, at least until the ‘carrying capacity’ of the ecosystem is reached).

    The typical JW answer is, “We just don’t know those details at the present time, since the Bible doesn’t say; so we just have to trust Jehovah will provide such information at the due time….”

    Translated:

    “Shut up with your pesky questions, you anorak! Just TRUST US, m’kay?

    Us JW’s have the TRUTH because we say we do! And take your “circular reference” concern and stuff it, since Jehovah can as He wishes! The Bible says, “With God, all things are possible”! There’s your proof.

    You’re still not convinced?

    Here, look at this tiny blue book which we published in the 1950s: we informally call it, “The Truth Book”.

    Look, we even went to the bother and added expense of embossing the word “TRUTH” on it in gold!

    So there: is that not proof enough to any reasonable person that we have ‘the truth’?”

    Yeah, so that’s the level of thinking we’re witnessing here in John…

  75. adamah says

    Marnie said:

    I’m getting the feeling that, much like Joseph Smith’s “golden plates,” a lot of JW doctrine is just biblical fan-fiction; borrowing heavily from the source material but being rewritten as needed to suit the writer’s personal desires.

    Bingo…. Give that girl a ceegar!

    John never answered my direct question if the truth is subject to revision or is immutable, but it doesn’t matter.

    If John said the truth was fixed (immutable), I was going to post this link which explains the flip-flops demonstrated by the leadership of the JWs (called the “Governing Body”) on the question of whether the resurrected will have sex:

    http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/marriage-new-system.php

    Of course, they’ve similarly flip-flopped on other more-important “life and death” issues (e.g. whether JWs are to be disfellowshipped for accepting blood products, now allowable only if the blood is “in fractions”). That site site explores the blood issue elsewhere.

    That’s why JWs are actively discouraged from examining the older writings in the official JW publications (Watchtower, Awake!, etc).

    The Governing Body glosses over their prior interpretative mistakes by claiming to have “received new light” from Jehovah….

    And if John had responded the truth were subject to 180 degree revision (aka flip-flopping), then it’s logically impossible to claim that one knows “the truth” at any given moment.

    John is likely impervious to such a logical contradiction being pointed out: that’s where an “appeal to faith” proves invaluable, allowing him to swallow any gob-smacking nonsense without experiencing the discomforts of cognitive dissonance.

  76. Tomaso Young says

    great channel guys! long time viewer first time commentor. i want all your thoughts/takes on the following:

    1) religion = superstition
    2) satanism = religion

    i wonder your thoughts on the above 2 items. thx again!

  77. phil says

    @John #44

    “God has the ability to look into the future but chooses not to so that an individual’s privacy is kept.”

    But that really means he isn’t omniscient. To be “all knowing” he has to be looking and listening all the time. How will god know if you’ve been doing the right things so he can judge you properly if he isn’t always watching, listening and reading our minds?

    Keeping an individual’s privacy? WTF? Does that mean if you pray in the toilet god isn’t listening? Does this mean you can think any evil thoughts on the bog and it won’t count against you?

    If Satan hides in the dunny how will god find him?

  78. phil says

    @113

    “That’s why JWs are actively discouraged from examining the older writings in the official JW publications (Watchtower, Awake!, etc).”

    So the reading material in “the little room” has to be kept up to date? No old Watchtowers there for when the roll runs out.

    “The Governing Body glosses over their prior interpretative mistakes by claiming to have “received new light” from Jehovah….”

    I assume that didn’t happen while they were on the throne, because god respects their privacy.

    Sorry to hammer this theme, but I’m surprised. I have long thought that god was always watching, when you peed, pooped or pulled yourself. Yeah, I accept he might get grossed out after a while, but hey, he’s omnipotent, he can handle it! Can’t he?

  79. phil says

    @John #57

    ” through observation of energy being slowed down into physical.”

    That’s gibberish. Pure twaddle.

    “Knowing the truth is not as important as being obedient to God. Satan knows the truth and God is going to kill him.”

    But being obedient, or not disobedient, relies on knowing the truth. Satan could pretend to be god and mislead you, John. How do you know that is not already happening? You don’t. Knowing the truth precedes by necessity, so knowing the truth must be at least as important as being obedient.

    “Hope that all of that makes sense to you.”

    Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

    #58 “God looked into the future and saw Judas betray Jesus. This did not affect the freewill of Judas.”

    It was always part of the plan, Jesus had to be betrayed or the plan failed, so Judas got shafted for fulfilling god’s plan.

  80. phil says

    #63 “God has allowed suffering, but has not caused suffering.”

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. – Isiah 45:7

    #66 “We change atoms via food.”

    Rubbish. Maybe you are thinking of chemistry, or physics.

    “I’m not sure if i understand you second point.”

    I’m pretty sure you don’t understand nearly every point presented to you here.

  81. phil says

    #105 “Yes the Bible proves the Bible.”

    You have that exactly arse backwards: the bible DISPROVES the bible.

  82. phil says

    JohnFromLONDONuk, I’m receiving a message:

    John. This is God. Yes, you can tell it’s me because I always send my messages through questionable channels.

    John, please stop. Cease. Desist. I know you think you are helping, but you just aren’t. And you’re making Me look like a despotic, tyrannical douchebag stuck with some backward Iron Age moralistic mentality that humans superseded centuries ago. People are laughing, at you and at Me.

    Please, for the love of Me, just stop.

    God

    PS: I promise I don’t watch you in the toilet, or when you fondle yourself.

  83. phil says

    Hey! Anything HE can do…

    JohnFromLONDONuk,

    Way to go man! Just wanted to say I greatly admire your efforts, and keep up the good work!

    Satan

    PS: You bet your arse he watches when you pee, poop or pick your nose! It’s in His contract (so to speak), He has no choice.

  84. phil says

    @GabrielTB & adamah #75

    I think you are asking the wrong questions. First you really need to establish that life has “meaning” or “purpose”. Personally I think that asking “what is the meaning of life” is nonsensical, in that meaning is not a property that pertains to life, except maybe if you believe in gods of some sort.

    That aside, I think the purpose of life can really be nothing other than what the individual chooses, other than “to replicate and distribute our genes.” I suppose we could talk about the “purpose” of the barista’s life is to make my coffee, but that is a rather trivial and demeaning sense, in that it might imply the barista has no other purpose outside of their job, i.e. I don’t think it is morally defensible in the philosophical discussion of life, existence, etc.

    I think the purpose of one’s life is whatever one chooses so as to make one’s life seem worthwhile and enjoyable. I’m not sure life can have “meaning”, meaning that I can’t comprehend any meaning of the word that makes it relevant to the concept of life in this discussion.

    Anyway, although I have thought about this on many occasions for quite a few years I don’t present this as some well developed philosophy, it’s more like the little puddle of dressing left in the bottom of the bowl after the salad has been eaten. Actually I suspect you might feel much the same way about it as I do, but you seem more comfortable using “meaning” than I am.

  85. phil says

    #95 Marnie says: a sexless eternity sounds downright tedious.

    Sounds like a lot of marriages actually (I read Savage Love too).

    #100 Martin789 says: why would there be sex? what is the point?

    Huh? You need a point before having sex? Sex IS the point isn’t it?! Tracie H has mentioned once or twice that pregnancy only occurs in humans (and chimps?) as a result of only 1 in 5 instances of sex without contraceptives, whereas it is much more common with other species (including other apes). Sex has an important social role in our species.

  86. adamah says

    John #44 said:

    “God has the ability to look into the future but chooses not to so that an individual’s privacy is kept.”

    Good pickup, Phil, calling him on this.

    (As the old military saying goes, John is such a “target-rich environment” he offers truckloads to unpack with his short contrite memes: it’s easy to overlook a few.)

    John, please provide a scriptural reference (book/chapter/verse) to support your claim, since I don’t recall reading anywhere in the Bible where the concept of God respecting personal privacy rights is stated and/or implied.

    On the other hand, I DO recall Jesus suggesting the existence of “thought sins” at Matt 5:28, saying whomever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her “in his heart”.

    That logically would necessitate God possessing mind-reading capabilities to know what a person is thinking, reading even their innermost (and embarrassing) private thoughts.

    On the other hand, I DO remember many scriptures saying Only God can read a person’s heart (e.g. 1 Kings 8:39, 1 Sam 16:7, and 1 Cor 2:11).

    BTW, at the time Jesus lived, the vast majority of humans living outside of Greece didn’t know anything about the true anatomical role of the brain (as the center of cognition); most humans instead clinged to the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians (the recognized experts on the human body at the time) who believed cognition literally occurred in the heart.

    That’s why ancient Egyptian physicians took extraordinary care to preserve the heart when preparing mummies for their after-life journey to have their heart weighed by the God Osiris; the physicians simply discarded the brain as useless or extraneous, as they didn’t know what it did!

    Nowadays, we do know better, but this ancient misbelief (found in the Bible, starting with Genesis) is easily dismissed by modern believers as a poetic euphemism; however, it once was believed as literal truth.

    What a missed opportunity for Jesus to correct this important misunderstanding of basic human anatomy, or even to prophecy that someday the true role of the brain would be common knowledge! There’s a practical prophecy, since it could advance human medical knowledge!

    And actually, Greek physicians had already figured out the true role of the brain a few hundred years before Jesus wandered the Southern Levant. So with his words, Jesus was perpetuating an old wive’s tale, and ancient misconceptions.

    That’s rather odd: isn’t Jesus supposedly Michael (the archangel who assisted in creating humanity),
    and wouldn’t Michael know the true role of the human brain? It’s arguably one of the most important organs of the human body, and even the crowning achievement of God, the pinnacle of human creation which separated humans from the animals (that is, if we temporarily overlook a “clever” talking snake that was able to out-smart Adam and Eve).

    Nowadays, ask any kindergartener to point to the part of their body where thinking occurs, and they’ll usually point to their head (brain), not their chest (heart). Not so for Jesus, since this was a widely-held misconception in 1st century Palestine, the mostly-uneducated area where Jesus lived and preached.

    But back to John, his words above are an example of making up extra-Biblical theology on-the-fly, since he likely knows he cannot defend the illogical thinking without resorting to making up stuff (however ill-conceived it may be).

    The Governing Body of JW’s would NOT be amused with John’s antics: only THEY, and not the average rank-and-file publisher in the field, get to make up nonsense on-the-fly and even they try to minimize doing so (since believing in the “new light” after the GB flip-flops positions requires the believer to possess the mental agility of a young Russian gymnast).

  87. adamah says

    Phil said:

    It was always part of the plan, Jesus had to be betrayed or the plan failed, so Judas got shafted for fulfilling god’s plan.

    Yup, and some 1st century Xians noted the same continuity error in the Gospels. Anyone familiar with Gnostic beliefs (a sub-set of Xianity) knows that Judas Iscariot was viewed by them as Jesus’ faithful servant for serving as the fall guy or scape-goat, as explained in their “Gospel of Judas”.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

    As Marnie alluded to above, there was a blossoming cottage-industry developing in 1st-2nd Century CE for writers of fan-fiction about Jesus and the disciples: in fact, the New Testament dismissed such writings and teachings as heretical, and even declared open season on gnostics.

    The Xian New Testament actually canonized the book of 2nd Peter, which is widely accepted by Bible scholars as a late forgery specifically penned, NOT by the apostle Peter in the 1st century, but a later anonymous author who’s goal was to combat the growing threat posed by Gnosticism in the 2nd century CE.

    And if not for the fairly-recent discoveries of the so-called ‘gnostic gospels’, the campaign to eradicate all traces of them and their “heretical beliefs” would’ve been a smashing success.

    PS, addressed to no one in particular:

    JW’s are quite immune to ridicule and mockery, as the GB points to Jesus’ words prophesying the followers of Christ would be tormented and prosecuted (even killed) for their beliefs.

    So if you’re looking for a good way to actually increase and reinforce a JW’s confirmation biases, then using ridicule is the fastest and easiest way to do it: it only drives them in deeper…

    Self-reflection time: it all comes down to asking yourself why you’re posting. Is it to serve your own ego (by making yourself feel superior to others), or to actually try and liberate believers’ minds from religiosity?

  88. Ron Slaton says

    This is in response to Victor in Clearwater Fla.

    I think it might be beneficial (for his parents) if Victor reviewed the show and Victor’s questions and comments with his parents. I would like hear how they responded to Matt’s rational response.