by braincleaned 52 Replies latest jw friends
I do not try to convert anyone to Catholicism, but don’t like it when people insult it either.
We as human beings are spiritual beings, and not recognizing this part of ourselves cripples us in a way that no amount of logic can make up for.
Oh...the irony....
Binadub said:
Would you say most of what we know about science, evolution, math, history, etc., etc., was learned from written material?
Some from lecture--but that also applies to Christian theism.
Except for the fact that what we know about science can be recreated in the lab to demonstrate WHY we believe what we believe. In fact, that's the entire reason MOST science courses (eg physics, chemistry, anatomy, botany, etc, etc) offer a lab component: some principles are more readily understood by seeing the principles demonstrated before your own eyes. That IS an essential component of science: reproducability of results.
Try doing that with any miracle that Jesus performed (eg resurrection). Good luck with THAT, cuz' it doesn't happen!
ST said:
Oh...the irony....
Yeah, I got lost here:
We as human beings are spiritual beings, and not recognizing this part of ourselves cripples us in a way that no amount of logic can make up for.
Lemme see: stating an unsupported fantastic belief ("humans are spiritual beings"), and using it as a base to make additional claims ("ignoring it cripples us" AND "logic won't help"). That's a three-fer.
That type of logical construct has Sab's signature all over it.... :)
"The person that commits to another religion, especially another Christian religion, so soon after leaving the witlesses is going to end up in a bad religion. However, the person that does extensive research on those religions is in a better position to choose something that will work for them. The broader the research, the more likely you are to find the right one or to stay out of it altogether (and avoid problems)."
I agree with the above stated comments of WTWizard. And am doubtful that I would ever take part in any "Organized religion" ever again.
================
I would disagree with KSols line of reasoning against (the existence of God) humans are spiritual beings : Except for the fact that what we know about science can be recreated in the lab ......
.......... some principles are more readily understood by seeing the principles demonstrated before your own eyes. That IS an essential component of science: reproducability of results."
KSol-When a man can create something from nothing- not out of something else already existing, then I would have to reconsider my belief that humans are spiritual beings and of God's existence.
JWs and other high control groups attract the 'weak', the 'gullible', and the 'lazy'. This does not mean that all of those terms apply to all JWs. But usually, at least one does. It also does not mean such people are inherently or permanently 'weak', 'gullible' or 'lazy'. Unfortunately, being born in to such groups tends to produce people who are weak, gullible and/or lazy.
The 'weak' lack the confidence to leave even if they may suspect problems with the organisation and its teachings. They are generally either born in, or become a member during some period of hardship. Depending on individual circumstances, such as not having any family outside - maybe not knowing anyone at all outside the organisation - even people who are relatively confident may still fall into this 'weak' category, because the difficulty in leaving is usually considerable. If they develop sufficient confidence to leave, they are the least likely to join another religion on the 'rebound'. If they are otherwise 'disfellowshipped' for some 'sin' (other than 'apostacy') they may try to return if an alternative social network cannot be established.
The 'lazy' find it easy to be involved with high control groups because they don't need to think for themselves. Many 'lazy' JWs are only intellectually lazy. They may be born in, or may join the organisation because their lives lack 'purpose', or because they are lonely and the congregation provides an 'instant social circle'. They tend to 'coast' in 'the truth', but may make 'advancement' as a 'ministerial servant', an 'elder' or higher if 'encouraged', particularly if it is the path of least resistance. If they do decide to leave but still lack motivation, they will probably seek out another group that provides a guiding framework, but dissatisfaction with JWs may cause them to seek out a more mainstream belief system. If they are disfellowshipped, they may try to return, but will probably become involved with another group instead.
The happiest of JWs generally fall into the 'gullible' category. They are usually born in, and others join as a result of extended contact with a JW schoolfriend or colleague. They genuinely believe they have 'the truth', and are extremely resistant to information not sanctioned by the organisation. Many in this category will never think of leaving. They are most prone to superstition, particularly in relation to a 'hope for the dead'. If problems about a particular incident or doctrine do get through, it may be 'a long way to fall', which may result in significant depression or unpredictable behaviour. If they do leave for doctrinal reasons but do not break free from the 'gullible' persona, they are the most likely category to seek out another ultimate 'truth' on the 'rebound', and some may even start their own group. If they are 'disfellowshipped' for some other 'sin' they are the most likely category to try to return.
So, nobody sees the problem with the claim that the God of Jews and Christians "originates" his "existence" from written scriptures. I see King Solomon, nearly hits the answer while taking one of his fan-pleasing roundhouse kicks at religion, but everyone else just sits around scratching.
Big concepts, baby steps. Ok, suppose for a second that the experience of the transcendent precedes the written record of it.
You with me? Ok, now suppose that this experience of the transcendent happens to people who very like us in some ways and very unlike us in other ways.
Pause...
Finally, imagine that much of our own moral code is dependent on the gradual development that begins waaaaay back a long time ago.
Finally: consider the (very remote) possibility that you are not quite as awesome as you think.
Apostatethunder: "Believing in God or not is a personal decision, that should be respected."It's one thing to respect a personal belief. It's another to question it.
So. as much as I respect personal beliefs, I am not bound to respect any religion, given it's lack of base in reason and logic. I have the right to hate organized religion, and I do.
Also, being "Spiritual" is only a philosophical concept. In that sense, I'm a spiritual atheist.
______ Really? THere are people who deny that the Christian God has reference in any other post-Biblical Scriptures?? I'm floored.
______
Sulla - you say "Ok, suppose for a second that the experience of the transcendent precedes the written record of it."
Am I not being clear? Of course any thought precedes written record. How does that make the Bible any more coherent with logic and reason?
I contend that the spiritual and moral matters in the Bible are no more relevant than its medical, scientific mumbo jumbo. I think my OP is very clear.
______I notice the religious are purposely ignoring my argument on confirmation bias... hmmm... an answer in the silence?
______
" Would you say most of what we know about science, evolution, math, history, etc., etc., was learned from written material? Some from lecture--but that also applies to Christian theism."
My friend Binadub, may I respectfully point out the depth of logical fallacies that are in this comment?
As per my "Jack & the Beanstalk" analogy, that too was written. It's not what is claimed in written form that counts - it's the evidence that corroborates it! The Bible simply states extraordinary things, without even basic ordinary evidence to back it up. Science on the other hand is not Knowledge - it's the exploration and pusuit of knowledge. What is written is done after much debate, peer review, and experimentation.
I wonder why there can be any confusion on this?
Sulla: " Finally: consider the (very remote) possibility that you are not quite as awesome as you think."
This is my constant concern. This is why I fight confirmation bias. I was a christian minister for over 4 decades -- beleive me, it was damn hard to let go. I lost my family for just being coherant with my conscience.
In time, the more I know, the more questions I raise. I will never have all the answers, but I try hard to understand the questions the best I can.
How ironic that someone who thinks the Unvierse was created with them in mind would dare hint on me being the conceited one. LOL!
As for morality, the simple fact that we have only recently considered slavery a bad thing proves how far we have come to the Abrahamic god's filthy immorality. Just like all the other myths, he ended up proven man-made with human bad traits. (This goes for Jesus who fully supports the Law in Matt. 5.)
One more thing, if I may Apostatethunder. You say "There are many mysteries in the universe, and humans have always wondered about them."
I encounter this idea multiple times a day: the idea that because we don't know everything, how can we deny the existance of God? I can play along with that. What I do NOT understand, is why deny what we DO know; what evidence we DO have. This is a mystery for me.
The fact that we don't have all the answers is no reason to fill them in with Yahweh, invented by men who had no knowledge of the Universe, at a time where morality was disgusting. We all need to Stop. Think. Read with context...
