Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Jehovis Witnesses! Two of them!

I kicked their arses big time :-) We talked for an hour.
The younger one didn't speak, the older one (50? 60?) was a confident and friendly person. I knew more about comparative religion than they, and basically I believe I was a better debater and "above" them and their arguments.

They opened the conversation by asking me about the bad people in the world... when you get on to theodicy, you're definately in Vexen Theology/Philosophy territory, and the problem of evil is the biggest thorn in the side of belief in god, they made a big mistake by bringing up "why are there bad people...", it went downhill for them since then!

We done Adam and Eve... and I kicked their arses, they quoted scripture on golden rule, sermon on the mount, all sorts, and in all areas I explained concisely and definitively the non-unique, illogical or problematic beliefs they had! They didn't get me on a single point!

It remained friendly, calm, open, happy, and at the end they were asking me if I studied theology, etc. What I didn't do is attack their beliefs, but I did tell them on each point why I didn't believe in God & the Bible. They say "Bible is true, proven by it's prophecies"... I say, "But from my point of view, I see that there are many religious books that make the same claim, and I wouldn't assume to trust one over any other". I asked them for a prophecy or two, and we went through three or four before they hit upon one that I couldn't refute. It was about the fall of Babylon, I'll have to look it up. It was an impressive prophecy.

They stuck to the free will theodicy, and I pressed them a bit hard on why they believe God has free will, but never has bad thoughts, and why God didn't create us the same way. Their answers became circular, and eventually they gave up on this, even though it seemed to be their main argument.

Now I am more than an hour late...

Anyone.. know I am late for going into London!

  • 1

Paradoxes and Controversies

U know Vex, you really amaze me. Sometimes, I find your arguements to be really well-thought-out and fascinating - even if I don't agree with them. Other times, I find them simply annoying and well I don't know how to put it, but it wards me off for a while. Perhaps it depends on my mood.

But let me get this straight here:

Here you are in this article, you're arguing against obvious Christians or members of a likewise belief-system, against so-called: "Free Will". This I have no problem with, because like you I myself, am a determinist too.

However below, you argue for "equal human rights". By this I assume you believe in not only Human Rights but also Human Equality. May I ask why, because this seemingly self-contradicting belief-system of yours is really starting to confuse me?

To my knowledge, the main reason why Determinism seems valid to most Determinists is because that "Free Will" can't be determined by Scientific Evidence. And likewise with "Human Rights" and "Human Equality". Such dogma has gone unchallenged for far too long, since I can find no scientific evidence to support such beliefs.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

i think it's as simple as Equality of any sort estencevly meaning 'equal rights to be ones self', and therefor human rights and equality should go hand in hand or else you will get an Animal Farm situation

you know, some are more equal than others, and all that

i accualy quite liked this post as it made sence to me unlike the ones hat seem to requie extenceve reserce into satanism

my favourate book for philosofical arguments is 'how to be a happy homosexual' by the tony bloke who edits Gay Times, becouse it made me depressed and, for tyhe small part, almsost ashamed of being gay. the satanic bible seems to me to just be a moden verson of the holy bible, and i thing judging by the intro, means to be, andseems to be full exclusivly of comman sence. then i have not study'd it propperly

just a random thought

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

these key's should be more sencitive

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

Animal Farm - I've always liked that book.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't even begin to read your argument... There are too many grammatical errors and mispellings. So please do "try" to make an effort to correct such mistakes - use a spellcheck if necessary unless you're using netspeak or something - in the future... please!

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

He's not talking in a form of netspeak, but he does have problems with text (not mere dyslexia).

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

so's my grandfather. however, due to his age, he has about 0 www skills.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

this is correct, i suppose. needless to say it will get better with time

SUp HuN!

I'm not going to critize your religion, I came onto this sight to enlighten myself of what is out there so I do not condenm anyone without investigation. Don't critise Christianity or infact any other religions till you have become less ignorant toward them. Do not condenm rather accept that we all have different beliefs. Good luck with yours.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

The Free Will Theodicy is not something to do with determinism, and during the conversation I never brought up the Determinism vs Free Will debate, and argued as if I believed in free will of both God and living beings. This was because they believed in free will, and probably could not have continued the discussion if I wanted to stick to a dterministic point of view, because it would undermine most of the arguments. It was more fun to make some concessions and *still* compete against their arguments.

I do not see the relation between being a determinist and arguing for equal rites. I do not believe that Humans are biologically, teleologically or philosophically equal in any way, everyone is different, no-one is equal. *However* I do believe that political equal rights is something that is a very positive social pressure, and is in itself a promotion of intelligence, tolerance and strength; whereas the lack of it is sectarian discrimination that has only ever played into the hands of the religious.

I don't "believe in" equal rights, but judge each area (race, religion, sexuality, etc) on it's own terms.

The difference between Free Will and Equal Rights: Both are scientifically mistaken ideas, ie, not true, but Equal Rights is nonetheless something worth debating for in many circumstances. For example, I don't believe companies should be able to fire people because they're gay. (I bring up this point in particular, because under pressure from the Christian Institute and Christian Alliance, this is what the Government is allowing this year).

On the other hand, I don't believe in Equal Rights in all areas, for example, I don't believe everyone should have the right to vote, or, that portions of the populace should have weighted votes. The type of equal rights I believe in most readily is the type that combats discrimination based on stupid judgements such as apperance or taste.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

The difference between Free Will and Equal Rights: Both are scientifically mistaken ideas, ie, not true, but Equal Rights is nonetheless something worth debating for in many circumstances. For example, I don't believe companies should be able to fire people because they're gay. (I bring up this point in particular, because under pressure from the Christian Institute and Christian Alliance, this is what the Government is allowing this year).

I'll agree to that, only because as someone who's radically opposed to capitalism, commercialism, and corporatism of any kind, I don't believe that corporates of all people have the rights to do squat!

I think you're misunderstanding me when I'm speaking of "human equality" and "human rights". That's not to be interpreted as "equal human rights". The two concepts are separated for a reason, but likewise, individually both are scientifically invalid concepts so it really doesn't matter, for the advocates of such weird ideas have put up just about as much evidence for their existence as the theists have for their God(s).

I don't "believe in" equal rights, but judge each area (race, religion, sexuality, etc) on it's own terms.

I'll agree to that, but I think you should reword to be a little less misleading - for if you wanted to believe in "rights" period, then you can say perhaps "individual" or "community" rights as opposed to "equal" rights. To me, equality translates as being all the same... We're not, nor shall we ever be!

For there is no more equality between two races, religions or individuals than there is between the sun and the moon.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

I probably misunderstand the difference between human equality and human rights. I don't believe in human equality, but do believe in political and legal equal rights, and in associated anti-discrimination laws.

I agree with your final statement on equality, races *are* biologically different, but, I think the differences are small enough and too complex to justify any legal or social differentiation.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

Well for starters "Human Equality" means that everyone - regardless of race, religion, nationality, etc - is inheritantly the same. That's bs! "Human Rights" - to me, at least - translates that Man has inherited some sort of "entitlement" as endowed by his Creator - be it God or Nature - to do things that he wants and that Man-Made Law has to respect. Do correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's how I understand them.

Personally, I don't agree with discrimination either - that is insofar as "public life" is concerned. Private life, however, is another affair.

Second, on the "small-differences between our Races", the only thing I would like to add is that it really matters not whether there's big or small ones. But - if you're interested in for some meaningless food for thought - that's what they used to think about chimps and humans... Apparently, thanks to new evidence, they're finding out different.

I guess it's what you said that reminded me of it, but a memory of a "startling" new article in the press rung in my mind as I was reading that statement on small differences.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

I agree that "human equality" as you defined it is ridiculous, but, I don't think that people could really think that everyone is the same? It seems so obviously not true!

"Human rights" has no neccessary religious aspect, it is secular (and often works /against/ religious beliefs), although Thomas Jefferson justified human rights in the name of god, he was only justifying good morality rather than arriving at good morality through a belief in god. Human rights for me is a political and societal force for good, but not something which "exists" or is natural.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

yes i do realize that it can be a "secular" phenomenon, but moderately, ppl are obviously oblivious to the origin of the wholes "rights" theory. in the early days, they were billed off as being "natural or god-given". today, they've been malformed into being "human" rights. so, my question here is, which is it? are they natural, god-given, or just human?

to me this plays out like some of the arguments of some those of those jesus cranks. some believe he's the father, son, holy ghost (trinity), whereas others disbelieve that; instead believing that jesus is actually "god" in human form. now which is it? all this confusing, and the same situation with "rights", "equality" and all other nonsense points to the same illogic, imho!

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

Human rights are neither from god, or philosophy, they are pragmatic statements that are good for society, and it doesn't really matter how people internally justify their support for them. Religious people will no doubt say, if they believe in a certain human right, that that right is god-given. But their justification is superfluous.

The Trinity makes no sense, and is a political fraud in order to reconcile different opinions of different religious groups, the resultant dogma of the Trinity makes no logical sense. But hey, that's religion for you!

For example, I believe logical thinking and education are good for society, so I support them. Historically, it doesn't matter who or what initially moved towards these things. Likewise with various human rights. Paper and printing were facilitated by organised religion for religious purposes, but that doesn't mean that paper is any less useful. So even if Human Rights were religious in history, it makes no odds, because tacit human rights are logically secular, it is only religious believers that think that they are good, or bad, on the grounds of the nature of their respective deities.

Re: Paradoxes and Controversies

i agree with you about the religious paper idea. you're right. however, that still doesn't change the fact that the advocates of such ideas - e.g. the plaintiffs here - should submit empirical evidence for peer review to avoid any kind of shall we say.... eeerrmmmhhh what's the word i'm looking for.... subversion or deligitimization via propaganda and refutation as have the various religions.

I've had JW's and other religious solicitors ring my doorbell many times. A few times I've said, "I'm a scientifically-minded person. I don't believe in faith. Anything you claim has to be backed up by verifiable evidence." That pretty much ends the conversation. I don't usually like to give away an hour to sit and talk theology with SOLICITORS (and to me that's all they are). I say that if any of it were actually true, they wouldn't need to go around knocking on people's doors to tell them about it. (And of course, once you mention the Gnostic Gospels, they get a worried look on their face and just shake their heads.)

My father-in-law takes a more creative approach (and HE'S the real scientist!). He's from Iceland, so he just roars at them in his best Nordic accent, "I am from ICELAND! We believe in the Norse God Thor!" *L* Someone else once said, "I'm PAGAN. Our god is a black WOMAN!" Heh heh. Of course, these lack the good debating techniques you possess. ;)

Sounds like you had fun. :)

Rarrrr! Go Father-In-Law!!

I did have fun, they were a bit limited though!

Well, if they weren't limited they probably wouldn't be preaching that religion, would they? ;)

I have to admit that the best answer for "How can one possibly say which of the many conflicting religous texts is true?" was given me by a morman I met the other week. It went along the lines of. "Ask God and just incase he indicates it's the book of morman here's a copy."
I'm actualy reading it as it's good to chalenge ones belifes and it's not totaly convincing but an interesting read none the less.

Hee, that's a great answer! :-)

And... I'm a bit jealous, I've never read it. What's it like? Is it mostly philosophy/history/revelation?

I am a bit dubious of Joseph Smith though... especially of the golden plates (the original text) which an angel took to heaven before the world could see them!

Although, speaking of original text, try reading View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, you will find that the content is so similar to the book of mormon, it's unnerving! "Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith's parents home."

Avaliable in hardback, paperback, gold plate and an audio-book read by Martin Jarvice?

i'v play'd this game so manny damned times that i know for a solid fact that it is a waist of time, unless you get pleasure out of doing so, becouse they usely will

jw', and mornal as well as stiner people tend to do this sort of thing for one of two reasons;

a, they get confort, pleasure and spiritual inritment out of the christian lifestile, in which case you will not change there minds real quick, and probly wouldn't want to

or b, they just want to hitlaisticly sell you a belief based of nothing, and lauth at you, in which case you can kill them and through them on you front porch, they'll only get back up and knock on your next door naighbor

when i get them, i usely invite them in and listen to what they say, and if they can't convince me under those conditions, which is alway's, i just tell them i'm not interested

but also, i invite them into MY home, and therefore MY life. i may be wereing a dress or nothing at all, or last time it was mormans and i was cuddling Pedla my pet Rat

they accused me of 'bashing', when i wasn't doing any such thing, then offered to baptise me to which i kindly refrained

an intresting story i heard was that someone got two jw's coming round, and he try'd to convince them he was Jesus and that he had risen from the dead. they try'd to convince him otherwise, but you can't, realy, when you think about it. they got frightened and were gone within minutes

well, i know i didn't use pointlessly long words or jumble sort ones round untill they didn't make sence, but it's my opinion

Actually I do enjoy it! Otherwise I'm happy to say "No, I'm sensible" and close the door on them, or something else equally obnoxious.

I think there is another reason why some of them go door to door. They might honestly think it is the right thing to do, according to typically evangelical beliefs.

this atitude is atractive to me

it's just i'v lived with and around SO MANY of these types of people and have neveror at best rearly encountered such inteligents

it's all 'me good you bad'

and people like me never get a word in edgeways

it's 'beleive in god, we do, thats a good boy'

whilst people i know and know well are pumping out simplistic auguments useing unessesery long words, and i'll finish this in a mo

this atitude is atractive to me

it's just i'v lived with and around SO MANY of these types of people and have neveror at best rearly encountered such inteligents

it's all 'me good you bad'

and people like me never get a word in edgeways

it's 'beleive in god, we do, thats a good boy'

whilst people i know and know well are pumping out more simplistic simplistic auguments than my own, nearly every time stuff i agree with more than any christian prospective, using unessesery long words and quotes from long dead pholsophers and stuff, and basicly why do they not answer my questions, is it prehaps becouse they cannot, and if so who is the retarded one

at least i have an open, VERY corupt resistent mine

by the way, i'm not angery with YOU, but you used the word 'obnoxious' in a sentence that a Yellowphobic member of the 'homosexual community' might call 'an assumtion'

i like you

It's not a competition that's really immature to even think of it that way. I'm glad you believe strongly in your religion but don't make it about proving you're the "better person" Every one is equal and should be in any religion. Don't judge till you know all. That will never happen.

The only competition in life is with ourselves, our own talents and weaknesses, the hardest task is to develop love.

I enjoy debating and am excited by it, also, the two callers are members of a religion that, like other religions, has severe inherent contradictions and problems as a result of philosophy, which are not addressed by it's theology. By challenging people on these points, they are forced to think. That is the ultimate aim - to make people think. And from time to time when they do the same to me, I am grateful.

You are right in saying that no-one knows it all, and for that very reason I believe it is important to debate and question our beliefs, just in case our opponents know something that we do not, and we learn from the exchange.

  • 1

Log in