What drives exJWs to atheism?

by ros 108 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JAVA

  Ros,

  As others already pointed out, logic is the driving force behind atheism/agnosticism. Belivers use faith in order to believe. Atheists use logic. That's the answer to the question of this subject line. If there is a deity behind the vale I wish s/he was concerned enough to prove it without asking humans to deny logic. That would be much better than the pick a religion/deity out of the faith-hat concept many believers debate, kill, hate, and die for.

  I think many ex-JWs reach a point of thinking, "fooled once, shame on them; fooled twice, shame on me." They start questioning many concepts they held and picked up along the way. When that happens, many use logic as a means of testing concepts they accept. That's why many ex-JWs turn to atheism.

  --JAVA

  ...counting time at the Coffee Shop
• 

  proplog2

  One of the main reasons I value all those years of being misled is the fact that it made me aware of the value of logic. If you haven't gone through a life of "garbage thinking" you are most likely going to take logic for granted.
• 

  rosBeacon

  1. God exists.
  2. All that God creates are good.
  3. God has created everything.
  4. There exists something that is not good.

  This is what I call an example of flawed logic.
  First of all, premises 2 and 3 are reversed; logically premises 2 should follow 3.

  Second, the word "good", if you are applying it in the sense of Genesis 1, and "good" in your premisis 4 have different meanings. One (2) means accomplished according to plan, and the other (4) means wicked or painful. The two do not correlate.

  However, before this gets off on a prove-or-disprove-God by deductive reasoning (logic), we both know that cannot be done.
  Either God exists or He does not, and neither way can be proved by logical deduction. Otherwise you could surely have presented a much better example.

  To me, basing disbelief in a Creator on the fact that evil exists is not viable deductive reasoning. You might not like God because of it, but it is not evidence for the non-existence of a Creator IMO.
• 

  proplog2

  Ros: You seem to like this theme. I think you are a border line atheist/agnostic/skeptic.

  It is true that the existence of evil doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It just proves that if there is a God he tolerates and observes horrendous unspeakable acts and fails to intervene to prevent evil.

  It is better to believe God doesn't exist then to believe that the greatest power in the universe allows evil deeds to be performed because he wants to a< Make a name for himself b< Teach humans moral urgency c<Build human virtue.

  I am not an atheist because I want to be. I would be thrilled with the slightest manifestation. How about that wool - thing. Put some wool out at night and if there is dew on the grass but not on the wool. Next night reverse the process. Dew on the wool but not on the grass. Even that would be better than nothing.
• 

  ros

  Propolog2:
  

  Ros: You seem to like this theme. I think you are a border line atheist/agnostic/skeptic

  No, I'm just not a fundamentalist. ;)
  Obviously, the Creator permits evil. The question is why?
  The analogy clue is at Gen.3:22 imo.

  Consider this analogy:
  IMO, the Government not only tolerates, but in some instances promulgates bad things. Look at some of the atrocities in war! Criminals of heinous crimes not prosecuted on irrelevant technicalities, etc. I don't understand why the Government does it or allows it, but its the boss, so I have to follow the rules, whether I understand or like them or not. Most people think that basically, the Government has our best interests at heart, even though they don't always understand or agree with the process.

  I fully realize it is a shoddy comparison if you entertain a particular idealism about God that He must comply with for you to believe in Him. But He ain't gonna come down and put dew on that lambs wool to prove His existence, so that's where its at. :)
• 

  outnfree

  Ros,

  I'm not understanding your reference to Gen. 3:22 for the "analogy clue".

  Genesis 3:22 Then Yahweh God said, "See the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

  So, because man had discovered good and evil, man was not to become an immortal, but evil itself would be allowed to continue indefinitely as generation after generation of mortal humans died?

  outnfree
• 

  ros

  Hi, outnfree:

  First, I do not take the book of Genesis literally. It was not intended to be. So when I refer to a scripture there, it is for the underlying analogical value. That is why I say Gen.3:22 is a "clue".

  In the creation story, it says that man was made in God's image. Yet, evidently we cannot be in God's image without understanding good and evil. That is why God--in the story--would say: "Man has become like us, knowing good and evil."

  I don't know your religious leanings, but if you are Christian, think about this: IN THE STORY AS IT GOES (pause for this to register). . . If Adam and Eve had never sinned, and had eaten of the tree of Life, the implication is that we would all be here forever, overpopulating the earth, never dying, never going to heaven or anywhere else, but running around blithfully naked in a lush expanding garden. To carry the scenario further, once the earth would reach a full population, would sex and marriage would no doubt desist? And people might eventually wonder what those annoying physical differences were all about, etc., etc., etc.

  My belief until something better comes along is that this is the life of the knowledge of good and evil. It was designed to be. This earth is essentially away from God's presence, and it is through death that we will be born again into a spiritual life. That is what Christ was trying to explain to Nicodemus imo. In the edenic story, the only way to die was to sin. The only way to get born into spirit is to die.

  Opinion: In order to experience good, to understand it, to have joy, we have to have experienced the opposite.

  This is my philosophical viewpoint, not carved in stone, and I'm sure others here on both sides of the skeptic/believer debates will consider my viewpoint to be folly. Fwiw.
• 

  SixofNine

  First, I do not take the book of Genesis literally. It was not intended to be.

  HA! Read it again. The writers of Genesis most certainly intended for it to be taken literally. They peppered it with "factoid" type details, they never once let on that it was "just a story".

  How dishonest of you to say that. Or perhaps your reading comprehension is nil. Either way, you have no business trying to mislead others to your way of thinking.
• 

  proplog2

  Ros:
  What a perfectly horrible analogy!!!

  You said:

  "Consider this analogy:
  IMO, the Government not only tolerates, but in some instances promulgates bad things. Look at some of the atrocities in war! Criminals of heinous crimes not prosecuted on irrelevant technicalities, etc. I don't understand why the Government does it or allows it, but its the boss, so I have to follow the rules, whether I understand or like them or not. Most people think that basically, the Government has our best interests at heart, even though they don't always understand or agree with the process."

  Do I need to point out the fallacies in your statements:

  "SINCE governments have the right to do "evil" things THEREFORE we must go along with it"

  Do governments have the "right" to do bad? And if they do "evil" is there nothing we can do about it?

  The whole point is that Jehovah watches little kids die in fires every day and he doesn't prevent it. Jehovah watches the innocent get killed every hour and he never puts up a simple shield. One of the responsibilites of citizenship is to do what you can to prevent crime and injustice. If there is a God he is a bad citizen of the universe.

  Better to believe that such an incorrigible entity doesn't exist.
• 

  hippikon

  What is God.

  There are forces in nature that are creative as there are forces that are destructive. The growth of a simple salt crystal appears to be creative but not necessarily intelligent. The building of a crystal follows the rules of chemistry and physics. Some may conclude this is a miracle from God and evidence that he exists. It is IMO evidence that certain laws of chemistry and physics exist that build rather than decay. Call it God if you want but to me it’s the laws of nature. If you don’t understand the laws you don’t need to invent an explanation for them. And no doubt there are many lays we don’t understand.