alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
Like 13:4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
It doesn't sound like Jesus was saying that it, it sounds like he was saying bad things can happen to anyone.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
Actually, according to the gospel of Luke, Jesus apparently thought that innocent people die in disasters and he did believe this was compatible with his view of God. (Luke 13) So the idea of a God who allows innocent people to die does not contradict what Jesus taught, in fact it is exactly what he taught.
To be clear: I am not saying that I believe natural disasters don't pose a challenge to the idea of a loving God. They pose a very serious challenge. And the 2004 tsunami is what made me lose faith in God.
What I am saying is that it is at least possible that there are some facts or some perspective I have not considered that could alter the situation in ways that I would currently find surprising.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
How do you know we have "all the relevant data"?
How do you know that an almighty being cannot see a logical solution where you see none?
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
That's agreed then.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
It's as if some people have simply never encountered surprises in life or have never read literature or even watched a good movie.
How often does it happen, even in mundane every day situations where: you think you've got everything worked out. You know all the details. You've thought about all the scenarios and all the logical counter arguments. You've covered absolutely everything. And then the event comes, or you meet a new person with a different perspective, or you find that you were wrong about some detail - and it changes everything. And it changes everything in a way that you simply couldn't even have imagined prior to the event, encounter, or new detail. Does that never happen? If it can happen in everyday life, if it's the basis for all good stories, then is it inconceivable that it could also happen in relation important to questions such as: is there a God and why is there suffering?
If we are going to imagine a scenario as awesome as an encounter with the almighty, it seems intelectually impoverished in the extreme, not even to leave open the possibility of a surprising outcome. To insist that we are going to be in a position to lecture God about how he got it wrong and that he will have nothing worthwhile to say in response. It tells us nothing about the ultimate questions themselves, about which atheists are in no better position to offer definitive answers than anyone else, and tells us everything about the closed mind of the person making the assertion.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
He never said God couldn't tell him anything, in fact, the man in the video said that he couldn't tell God anything about himself that God didn't already know. (If God really is omniscient.)
Yes that's what he said. Which presumes that because he "knows" that he himself doesn't believe in things for convenience, therefore it is a "fact" about himself, and that any God would also "know" the exact same thing.
It's as if the possibility simply hasn't occurred to him that it could be otherwise. He can't conceive that he could genuinely think that his beliefs are objective, and not based on wishful thinking, and yet he be wrong about that. It's as if he's never considered that his views may be based on wishful thinking on a level which he has not appreciated or perhaps is not able to appreciate. It's as if he thinks that God, even if he exists, couldn't possibly have a greater insight into his mind than he has about his own mind.
What if he were to say to God:
I never believed in you, but you know me God, I arrived at my beliefs honestly and never believed anything just because it was easy, but because that's the conclusion I honestly came to. You can't fault me for that God.
And God replied:
Well actually those beliefs performed this or that function in your overall worldview and enabled you to do this and that while believing yourself to be consistent. You may have believed you were acting objectively but you were fooling yourself in this way and for the following reasons.
Or indeed if God gave some other reply which contradicted his understanding of himself in some important way which we can't even imagine or begin to sketch out. Maybe not, but if it's almighty God we are talking about here, can we really rule out the possibility of a surprising or informative reply?
In reality there is a mountain of evidence that humans are extremely poor judges of their own motivation and limitations of their own knowledge. There is a deep irony involved in the fact that it is often those who claim to be the most ardent rationalists who are most reluctant to accept the clear and voluminous evidence for the frailty and limitations of the human mind.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
He makes the statement "none of my views are based on what it is convenient to believe".
Any level of reflection should cause one to pause before making such a sweeping statement.
How does he know his atheism isn't based on convenience? He certainly doesn't want to believe it's based on convenience. But wishing doesn't make it so. And again, some reflection should cause anyone to pause before making such definitive statements about anything as complex as the brain, motivations and human psychology.
He rules out the possibility that God could tell him anything about himself that he doesn't already know. Which is remarkable hubris.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
darth frosty there's a Sam Harris protégé right there: as verbose as he is unreflective and unaccountably certain of his views.
He says he's confident God would know he has never believed a single thing simply because it is convenient, because he himself knows that is the case. How does he know? It seems like an extraordinary claim for any human to make. Never believed anything for convenience, ever?
Certain atheists have such high regard for their own mind that they consider themselves absolute experts on their own actions and psychology. Which is pretty absurd when you think about it.
If there was a fracture in your leg and the doctor wanted an x-ray, imagine telling the doctor: there's nothing about my leg you can tell me that I don't already know. I am the world's leading expert on my own leg. So keep your science and your so-called knowledge to yourself.
So why assume that the working of the brain is entirely transparent to its owner? Or that psychology, psychiatry and sociology have no insights beyond what a person "feels" from the inside?
I have no doubt this young man wishes and believes that all his views are based on evidence rather than convenience. But "wishing does not make it so" as atheists themselves are often fond of saying.
on many posts by those with experience of df or da shunning, it look to me that the most fanatical observers of the shunning practise are mothers, and when a person approached parents about their own doubts or intentions, approaching the mother the most daunting prospect .
odd that visiting warwick leaflet has a picture of a meeting of some sort with a room comprising men only, given the subordinate role given to women, one might think they would be more liberal over shunning close ones, but not so.. what drives this, is it grabbing an opportunity to be more visible by their loyalty, or low level of education of a lot of dubs so that the sisters blindly accept direction or authority.
i might have expected some kick back against the shunning practise by sisters giving evidence to their independence of thought.. our real thinkers here will be able to explain this fanaticism of loyalty better.
Worth bearing in mind that there is an overall preponderance of women among JWs: as much as 70% according to one census, if I recall correctly. That may be especially true of the baby boomer generation in particular. So there are many more single mother JWs or JW mothers with unbelieving husbands than the male equivalent.
So the situation of disaffected JW children engaging believing mothers probably simply happens a lot more often.
i have been faded for years and years.
no one cares about my standing in the christian congregation any more.
so one day, my husband came up with this won-der-ful idea for a jdub button.
Apparently button means badge in American, beyond that this thread is still a mystery.
