• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses

Yes, it is "seemingly" infinite, and we know so little about what actually exists in it.


Whatever the ratio is between believers in the Christian God and unbelievers in the Christian God.
False.
I wouldn't say THAT small.


I would, and it is, compared to the universe. It's about the size of a molecule on a spec of sand compared to all the specs of sand in the world where each spec of sand represents a galaxy.
 
While I didn't exist at that time, and I can't fully grasp that process because I wasn't there to see how it happened, I do not have to resort to the intellectually lazy "idk, therefore God" argument. I can use philosophical reasoning to determine that the universe must of had a beginning, and can determine that, for the universe to begin, a necessary, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, personal, etc. "force" must have caused it into existence. That specific description of this "force" is exactly how and what Christians describe their God to be.


Read my argument again, it stands. You can't possibly know these things, it's intellectual dishonesty to claim such things.

The universe is so vast, and the mind is so small compared to it, and the odds you got it right are just as slim.


For me, the only honest intellectual position to take, is to accept that life is a mystery, not to be solved, but to be lived.


Life is a mystery, and I am content with it.
 
Only one problem there... God isn't something that was simply "discovered" though; your example goes against the very definition of what God is. See my response to your first sentence.
You have an assumed premise, that God exists. in order to make your statement, you must prove God exists first. Since that isn't possible, then you can't make the statement that assumes it.
Because that is intellectual laziness. That also makes life completely meaningless because you have no idea why you are living it (or who you are living it for).
the decision not pursue an impossible objective, knowledge of the ultimate truth of the universe, is not intellectual laziness, it is wisdom at it's highest level. The better objective in life is the pursuit of wisdom which is the pursuit of spiritual and/or intellectual enlightenment and enrichment.
That makes no sense to me because there is no purpose attached to it. What's the purpose of "living" life then? Why ought I act morally? Why ought I not commit suicide? etc. etc. These are all intellectual questions which need to be answered...
Life has no purpose. There is no God, God wrote no book, these are all fanciful notions arising out of the poverty of man's imagination. One does not need a God to act morally. Common sense and the essential goodness in all is all that is needed.

Just live and enjoy life. I can accept your need to have a faith, but I don't have "a faith", I do, however, have faith. My faith is a belief, just as your belief is a belief. But the difference is, I don't accept it as fact, i accept it for what it is, a belief.

now then, my belief, my "faith" is the faith that the universe has something positive in store for us, and that life has a spiritual basis, that the "I" in each of us is an eternal soul, and I can't presume to know what it is, or it's precise nature, I believe it because I can sense it, nor can I presume to know where we are headed, but I have faith that it is so. Just as your belief gives you comfort, and that is a good thing, so is mine. Ancient sages have talked about it, though, and their teachings appeal to my sensibilities, such as the Dhammapada, and the Tao Te Tching, and the Gnostic Gospel Of Thomas. If there is a God, then it's probably the God of Pantheism. But, that's just a wild guess.

But, I do not play the intellectual dishonest game of claiming my belief is fact, for that cannot be known.

Life is a mystery, and the sooner you accept it, the more intellectually honest you will be. It's okay to believe, to philosophize, but it's not okay to say "my belief is the only belief, and it is fact". That's really intellectual treason. Man's inhumanity committed on man has been based on that premise, alone, i.e., the crusades, Islamic extremism, etc.
 
Last edited:
...I guess my question is do you feel it your business to call out anything that's wrong?
I guess my answer is no.
I guess that's a difference between you and me I'm going to stand up and fight for what's right. It sure is a good thing that other people were willing to do that for you so that you can exercise your religion here in the country they made for you.

And the country they maintained for you.
Hmm. An interesting nuance creeps into this "difference between" us. On the one hand you ask about "calling out anything that's wrong," and on the other you talk in terms of "standing up and fighting for what's right." That is to say, the question is framed in terms of wrong, the answer in terms of right. Do you find this interesting, or is it just me?

And just for the record, what fight for religious freedom was fought in America on my behalf? My American history has developed some rust, and I would appreciate the refresher.
 
Hmm. An interesting nuance creeps into this "difference between" us. On the one hand you ask about "calling out anything that's wrong," and on the other you talk in terms of "standing up and fighting for what's right."
Sometimes calling it out is all the fight you need. Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all. But it is necessary to call out what is wrong to fight it.

That is to say, the question is framed in terms of wrong, the answer in terms of right. Do you find this interesting, or is it just me?
Its just you.

And just for the record, what fight for religious freedom was fought in America on my behalf?
Revolutionary war and the fight to get the bill of rights ratified.

Are you not an American?

My American history has developed some rust, and I would appreciate the refresher.
Forgetting the Barbary wars is understandable forgetting the entirety of the founding... that's some deep decay.
 
I like what a Pharisee named Gamaliel, who rose in the Sanhedrin, had to say to the court officials when they attempted to silence Peter and the other apostles...

"So under the present circumstances, I say to you, do not meddle with these men, but let them alone. For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself.” Acts 5:38,39

I also like what Bro. Russel stated 139 years ago, at the beginning of the publishing of the Watchtower...all that needs to be said...

In 1879 Pastor Russell, as he was affectionately called, began to publish in defense of truth the magazine that is known worldwide today as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom. In its second issue, he declared: “[This magazine] has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support. When He who says: ‘All the gold and silver of the mountains are mine,’ fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication.”

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988013#h=20:70-20:588
 
...Do you I think it's your business that people choose to put their children through sex change therapy if so what business do you have doing that?
...I don't follow your sex therapy illustration. Would you mind clarifying it?
...I guess my question is do you feel it your business to call out anything that's wrong?
I guess my answer is no.
I guess that's a difference between you and me I'm going to stand up and fight for what's right. It sure is a good thing that other people were willing to do that for you so that you can exercise your religion here in the country they made for you.

And the country they maintained for you.
Hmm. An interesting nuance creeps into this "difference between" us. On the one hand you ask about "calling out anything that's wrong," and on the other you talk in terms of "standing up and fighting for what's right." That is to say, the question is framed in terms of wrong, the answer in terms of right. Do you find this interesting, or is it just me?

And just for the record, what fight for religious freedom was fought in America on my behalf? My American history has developed some rust, and I would appreciate the refresher.
Sometimes calling it out is all the fight you need. Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all. But it is necessary to call out what is wrong to fight it.

Its just you.

Revolutionary war and the fight to get the bill of rights ratified.

Are you not an American?

Forgetting the Barbary wars is understandable forgetting the entirety of the founding... that's some deep decay.
Yes, I'm American, but I must have stopped reading revisionist histories before our historians decided that the American Revolution was fought over religious freedom.
As for calling out wrongs and fighting for what's right, I think there is a difference, and so perhaps you were right in recognizing a difference between us, inasmuch as I see the former as none of my business, and the latter as my duty.
 
Can't you see a version of "IDK, therefore the Christian God" in there?

Even if you posit that God is necessary and I choose to accept that, isn't getting from "God" to the God of the Christian Bible a gigantic leap of faith?

I can't happen to spot any "idk, therefore the Christian God" reasoning in what I said. I was basically asserting the Cosmological Argument From Contingency, which starts on the 7th paragraph of this link https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...d/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/

Granted, as you rightfully conclude in your comment I am responding to, even if you do accept this specific argument, it only concludes the existence of a generalized God, not any specific God, such as the Christian God.

For getting down to the Christian God, one needs to prove that other gods couldn't fit those requirements, and I would say that supporting the resurrection story would be pretty crucial to proving that the Christian God is the "true" God. Here's a debate that WLC and Bart Ehrman had concerning historical evidence for the Resurrection.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...r-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/
 
I can't happen to spot any "idk, therefore the Christian God" reasoning in what I said. I was basically asserting the Cosmological Argument From Contingency, which starts on the 7th paragraph of this link https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri...d/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/

Granted, as you rightfully conclude in your comment I am responding to, even if you do accept this specific argument, it only concludes the existence of a generalized God, not any specific God, such as the Christian God.

For getting down to the Christian God, one needs to prove that other gods couldn't fit those requirements, and I would say that supporting the resurrection story would be pretty crucial to proving that the Christian God is the "true" God. Here's a debate that WLC and Bart Ehrman had concerning historical evidence for the Resurrection.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...r-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/

The IDK part is the answer to the "where did this all come from?" question. From there, you seem to be saying that, for you, a God that is not constrained by having to have a creator itself is the most satisfying answer, and further, the Christian God as opposed to another God concept - that "Christian" part adds a lot of things.

However, that isn't the only answer one could come up with. I could describe universes that exist in dimensions beyond our perception, and races of beings in one or more of those. I could further argue that one of those beings is the creator of our universe, and far from being omnipotent in its reality, it's the equivalent of a bad 4th grade student. Our universe was a science project, and he got a D on it. I know that's silly, but I'm just using an idea that I came up with when I was actually in the 4th grade.

We are limited to our senses and imaginations. There are things that potentially exist outside our comprehension. Maybe that's God. Maybe that's the Christian God. Maybe it's something else all together. I think the odds are more on the latter, though I reserve the right to change my mind on that.;)

Edit : I'll try to read the WLC link entirely later. Same for the vid.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm American, but I must have stopped reading revisionist histories before our historians decided that the American Revolution was fought over religious freedom.
I don't think I said it was fought over religious freedom, just that it was an outcome.




As for calling out wrongs and fighting for what's right, I think there is a difference, and so perhaps you were right in recognizing a difference between us, inasmuch as I see the former as none of my business, and the latter as my duty.
They former is necessary for the latter.

So I think your position is illogical.
 
I don't think I said it was fought over religious freedom, just that it was an outcome.

As for calling out wrongs and fighting for what's right, I think there is a difference, and so perhaps you were right in recognizing a difference between us, inasmuch as I see the former as none of my business, and the latter as my duty.
They former is necessary for the latter.

So I think your position is illogical.

Well, as for what you did or did not say about the Revolutionary War, that was offered by you in answer to my question: "what fight for religious freedom was fought in America on my behalf?"
Which question had arisen in response to this by you:
I guess that's a difference between you and me I'm going to stand up and fight for what's right. It sure is a good thing that other people were willing to do that for you so that you can exercise your religion here in the country they made for you.
I'm willing to drop the question and leave the record to speak for itself.

As for the difference we don't agree on, it seems to me that confronting others on their misdeeds (calling out what's wrong) is one thing; defending rightness from attack (fighting for what's right) is another.

If you meant something other than what is usually meant by "calling out" and "fighting for," then perhaps we don't disagree after all, but our agreement is not that important and I really don't care to argue semantics with you or anyone else.


Peace.
 
Back to Topic
Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses in new special following 'Kevin Can Wait' cancellation | Fox News

Well, this could be fun to watch. :mrgreen:

While not quite on the same level of "you've got to be kidding me" as the Scientologists, there's plenty of crazy nonsense that can be exposed when it comes to JW's.

Bimbo Blasts Bahá'í Faith

AqHcBu1.jpg


Barefoot and impregnable, TV's Leah Remini confronts Bahá'u'lláhs in parking lot over her morning latte.
 
Whatever floats your boat, but I personally am not content with that.

The key part is showing what you ARE content with is more than just 'let's make it up as we go along'. and 'This is what I want it to be'.
 
Well, as for what you did or did not say about the Revolutionary War, that was offered by you in answer to my question: "what fight for religious freedom was fought in America on my behalf?"
Which question had arisen in response to this by you:

I'm willing to drop the question and leave the record to speak for itself.

As for the difference we don't agree on, it seems to me that confronting others on their misdeeds (calling out what's wrong) is one thing; defending rightness from attack (fighting for what's right) is another.
I never said anything about confronting people about their misdeeds that is a straw man.

If you meant something other than what is usually meant by "calling out" and "fighting for," then perhaps we don't disagree after all, but our agreement is not that important and I really don't care to argue semantics with you or anyone else.


Peace.
I meant what I said I didn't mean what you inferred.
 
I don't really see how that helps your case.

"yeah this person might have existed, but whether or not he performed magic is up for debate".

It helps it for the reason stated. Lots of people went to their deaths for the testimony they made about Christ. They knew that holding to that testimony could gain them nothing and yet they did it anyway. That tells me they either saw something extraordinary take place or they all suffered mass delusion or they were all lying. The latter two explanations make less sense than the first one.
 
There is no such thing as a 'plural god' God is one. God is not three in one. Here oh Israel , the lord our god, the lord is ONE.

The trinity is evident in the OT and the NT. That passage refers to there being only one God, not what the nature of that one God is.
 
The IDK part is the answer to the "where did this all come from?" question. From there, you seem to be saying that, for you, a God that is not constrained by having to have a creator itself is the most satisfying answer, and further, the Christian God as opposed to another God concept - that "Christian" part adds a lot of things.
Yup, I think you basically understand my position. I also add that I feel that a lot of the intricacies of this universe (the fact that changing many known constants [such as gravity] by an infinitesimally small amount would render our universe non-life-supporting) very likely could not have all happened as a result of randomness. Rather, it seems much more plausible to me that all those constants (given their extreme precision) were specifically designed by an intelligent mind (otherwise known as a "God") to be set precisely where they are set (and to be maintained by the same God so that they don't randomly change and render Earth as non-life-supporting).

Time seemingly goes "forward" in a way that goes from "order" to "chaos" (example: one's room is clean, it gets chaotic, they clean it, it gets chaotic, and etc. etc.). If one were to "reverse" time, it would flow in reverse from "chaos" to "order" (room is chaotic, it becomes clean, room is chaotic, it becomes clean, etc. etc.). So, at the very beginning of time, there is perfect order. Would this perfect order come as a result of randomness, or would it come as a result of God? I'm inclined to believe that God would be more "orderly" than randomness would be. Randomness, by definition, is chaotic. This fact also leads me towards God.

However, that isn't the only answer one could come up with. I could describe universes that exist in dimensions beyond our perception, and races of beings in one or more of those. I could further argue that one of those beings is the creator of our universe, and far from being omnipotent in its reality, it's the equivalent of a bad 4th grade student. Our universe was a science project, and he got a D on it. I know that's silly, but I'm just using an idea that I came up with when I was actually in the 4th grade.
You could do so, but I think you would find that it would introduce various absurdities depending on what you would all assert.

We are limited to our senses and imaginations. There are things that potentially exist outside our comprehension. Maybe that's God. Maybe that's the Christian God. Maybe it's something else all together. I think the odds are more on the latter, though I reserve the right to change my mind on that.;)

Edit : I'll try to read the WLC link entirely later. Same for the vid.
True. I agree, except I have found the Christian God to be quite convincing compared to other alternatives. Some of those readings get to be pretty long and complicated, especially that debate (and other debates), but it's information nonetheless. Whether good info or not, that's up to you.
 
No. The plural is stated in the OT, but a trinity cannot be assumed. You are jumping to a conclusion without any evidence. "we" and "us" could refer to any number > 1. 3 is one number, but there are an infinity of other numbers that satisfy the OT wording.

Of course I assume the trinity because I know what the NT says. If you are going to reject the NT then why bother with the OT unless you are Jewish and still awaiting the Messiah? If you don't believe either one, then arguing from something you don't believe in to disprove something else you don't believe in, seems rather pointless.
 
When you go to a doctor do you hope that the only book he/she has ever read is the bible?
What about when you fly in an airplane? Pilot's only ever read the bible. Would you stay on the plane?

Science offers no answers to anything?

Science offers answers to many things, just not everything. The Bible talks about those "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". That describes many people in those days and many people today. God and science are not incompatible. Many, many people believe in both yet some say you can only believe in one or the other.
 
Of course I assume the trinity because I know what the NT says. If you are going to reject the NT then why bother with the OT unless you are Jewish and still awaiting the Messiah? If you don't believe either one, then arguing from something you don't believe in to disprove something else you don't believe in, seems rather pointless.

I asked the question because I wanted to know if there was something establishing a trinity concept in the OT that tied it to the NT. Just because I hadn't seen one doesn't necessarily mean that others haven't been able to find one.
 
The key part is showing what you ARE content with is more than just 'let's make it up as we go along'. and 'This is what I want it to be'.

I've shown in numerous posts what views I am content with, why I am content with them, and how I became content with them. I've had many good discussions varying from people who generally agree with me to people who generally disagree with me. Those discussions have helped me to refine my positions and to learn WHY I believe what I believe, and what supports/negates my beliefs.

You happen to see the universe differently than I do, and happen to put your faith in randomness rather than intelligent design, even though time flows from "order" to "chaos" (so reverse would be "chaos" to "order"). If time started out in an "orderly" state, then it did not start out randomly, which by definition is chaotic. This suggests design by something that is orderly (such as the Christian God is).

I'm not just "making it up as I go along"... I've thought these things through quite thoroughly and have come to the "knowing" that the Christian God started it all...
 
Yup, I think you basically understand my position. I also add that I feel that a lot of the intricacies of this universe (the fact that changing many known constants [such as gravity] by an infinitesimally small amount would render our universe non-life-supporting) very likely could not have all happened as a result of randomness. Rather, it seems much more plausible to me that all those constants (given their extreme precision) were specifically designed by an intelligent mind (otherwise known as a "God") to be set precisely where they are set (and to be maintained by the same God so that they don't randomly change and render Earth as non-life-supporting).

Time seemingly goes "forward" in a way that goes from "order" to "chaos" (example: one's room is clean, it gets chaotic, they clean it, it gets chaotic, and etc. etc.). If one were to "reverse" time, it would flow in reverse from "chaos" to "order" (room is chaotic, it becomes clean, room is chaotic, it becomes clean, etc. etc.). So, at the very beginning of time, there is perfect order. Would this perfect order come as a result of randomness, or would it come as a result of God? I'm inclined to believe that God would be more "orderly" than randomness would be. Randomness, by definition, is chaotic. This fact also leads me towards God.


You could do so, but I think you would find that it would introduce various absurdities depending on what you would all assert.


True. I agree, except I have found the Christian God to be quite convincing compared to other alternatives. Some of those readings get to be pretty long and complicated, especially that debate (and other debates), but it's information nonetheless. Whether good info or not, that's up to you.

Your comment on randomness is spot on. You could go up on your roof with all the parts for a pocket watch and throw them down on the ground. Those parts could land in any of millions of different configurations. You could keep doing it again and again yet is there any chance they would ever land as an assembled pocket watch? Would a billion attempts do the trick? Or do you need an intelligent agent to assemble them? This is why the idea that the universe, the Earth and life on Earth happened randomly, is virtually impossible.
 
I never said anything about confronting people about their misdeeds that is a straw man.


I meant what I said I didn't mean what you inferred.
As I said, I don't want to argue semantics with you, CLAX, but I would just remind you that our exchanges over the meanings of "call out" and "fight for" began because I declined to follow you in "calling out" JWs over allegations made against them or parents who placed their kids in sex change therapy on the grounds that neither of these "wrongs" -- and I use the scare quotes pointedly -- fall under what I consider my business.

Peace.
 
I've shown in numerous posts what views I am content with, why I am content with them, and how I became content with them. I've had many good discussions varying from people who generally agree with me to people who generally disagree with me. Those discussions have helped me to refine my positions and to learn WHY I believe what I believe, and what supports/negates my beliefs.

You happen to see the universe differently than I do, and happen to put your faith in randomness rather than intelligent design, even though time flows from "order" to "chaos" (so reverse would be "chaos" to "order"). If time started out in an "orderly" state, then it did not start out randomly, which by definition is chaotic. This suggests design by something that is orderly (such as the Christian God is).

I'm not just "making it up as I go along"... I've thought these things through quite thoroughly and have come to the "knowing" that the Christian God started it all...

I am sure you are content with it. However, that is not the issue. The issue that we are debating is 'Objective Morals'. And, the matter of debate is 'can you support your claims'. The examples you attempt to give specifically rely on 'what do people think or feel about it'. That makes those examples subjective, not objective.

You are also misrepresenting my position, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. There are more choices out there than 'random' and 'intelligent design', and it doesn't appear when I explain mechanisms that you properly absorbed the implications. It doesn't mean your beliefs are wrong, but they are built on bad arguments.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom