Tammy: I take it that you were once one of the JWs. Did you believe that they had the “truth” then? Your statement “Truth is truth…” needs clarification. Is it the truth you believed as a JW or is it what you believe now? What is true about truth is that what makes it so is based on what can be verified. Regardless of the intensity of your feelings and those of mrhome and Perry, that does little to establish that what you all perceive is true. Even when we have sufficient evidence to support something as true, we have to keep an open mind because some other piece of evidence may come along and adjust that truth. We’ve been through this before (I mean specifically you and me). I’ve accepted that what you believe is real to you. But I’ve clearly established that what you believe is real cannot be supported outside of your own mind; that it can’t be assured to anyone that it is a part of reality.
Posts by Etude
-
340Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
mrhhome (from your post #96)
You really take the cake! You completely ignore that the morality of an action (even if you separate it from the person) is totally subjective; that your own prejudices and predilections make you define for yourself and others what morality means. Well, I can see why you feel that anyone who is not a believer is immoral, or in your case in order to super-fine tune your belief, you think that believers act immorally. Does it stand to reason then that believers are always moral or (according to you) act morally? Check your history again and look around you to see how many pious-faced religious people are not only immoral but are bold-faced criminals.
-
340
Fallacies about Faith
by tec inpeace to you!.
this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.
this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.
-
-
Etude
(I've been away for a while and then notice that the thread had been bumped)
Perry (from your 4090 post)
I’m unaware of the intimate details of Kirsen’s politics. But, I rather doubt your phrase: “Kirsen is a liberal democrat commentator on Fox News”. There is no such thing on FoxNews. I have listened to her and she has not given me any indication that she’s a liberal. One clue to this is the correlation in the article you cited about her being an ultra liberal and an atheist. The implication (especially at FoxNews) is that if you’re conservative, you tend to be religious (especially a Christian). Of course, I’m generalizing and not saying at all that there can’t be any atheist conservatives. But they would stand out like a baboon’s but in heat.
“Now he reveals himself privately once someone decides to believe. Do you blame him?”
Yes. As a matter of fact I do (as if I could when he’s not a real person). The fundamental problem is that whatever he did before is only here-say and unverifiable. Remarkably, it maintains consistency to this day. The people to whom he reveals himself have only their own mind to give testimony. Sorry, but I need more than that. It’s not that I’m arrogantly demanding anything from a supreme being. It’s that without some sort of verification, I can’t distinguish credulity from reality. I can’t determine if I’m deluding myself. I can’t be assured of what is real. I thought I had the answer once (maybe twice) and was greatly deceived. I’m not doing that again.
-
-
-
Etude
"Which god or God are you referring to?"
Huh? Your comment is a bit cryptic to me. So, you follow GOD, the head of all gods and the head of God. Is that right? I don't know what that means. But in answer to your question, just take your pick. I use the world God as a proper nown for a (the) supreme being responsible for the universe. That is more or less the accepted definition of the western concept of God. So, if you follow whatever it is you follow, somewhere in your definition, I think I've got you covered. If you look at reality with an unbiased eye, you'll find that there is no "good" or "evil" or "light" or "dark"; and I mean that in a moral sense and not a physical sense. But even in a physical sense, those things are a matter of degree from the absense of one thing to a full compliment of it. Really, things simple "are". What we ascribe them to be depends on circumstances. For example: Killing is not bad. God (the one from the Bible) ordered his people to kill with extreme prejudice to rid the land of non-followers. Killing in war is acceptable. Then, at other times, killing is not. But even then, it depends on who's doing the killing. If it's a Jeehadist blowing up dozens of people, it's not just OK. It's holy! There are times when even the best of us has trouble figuring out what is right and wrong. This often arises during trials by our peers where someone has broken a law (with moral implications). I know you feel fine, good water falling on you about now. But around here, I'm feeling nice and comfortably dry.
-
36
Topics not often discussed now
by jdubsnub inwhen i was a kid in the early 90's there always seemed to be a mention of how demons posessing people or how if you saw a demon or something supernatural occuring mearly calling jehovah's name would rid you of the situation.
rarely now a days do you hear anything of the sort.
that got me to thinking, what are some other topics the society has backed off of?
-
-
Etude
The article I remember was pre 1980s. It clearly mentioned oral sex. I remember thinking how "progressive" the opinion was because it mentioned how it was impossible from the language in the to determine what actual practices did or did not incorporate into porneia. Obviously, this didn't ring correctely to my pioneer friend, because he decided that the article didn't apply to what he was imposing on his bible study.
-
19
Do Wills Ever Affect Shunning?
by Cold Steel ina man has several sons and daughters who are active jehovah's witnesses.
so was his wife, who died two years ago.
he has since lapsed into apostasy and has been openly critical of the governing body.
-
-
Etude
I think wills can affect shunning. But so do a lot of other reasons. My mother and my aunt could care less what I’d done and they would never, ever stop speaking to me or showing me affections. My siblings, on the other hand, have not only avoided me but have taught their children (my nephews and nieces) to do that same. I recently re-wrote my trust to not leave them a dime when I kick the bucket. I really feel it’s not me doing it but that this the way they chose for me to do it. What I really should do is leave them the money on the condition that they leave the Organization with an official written statement. Otherwise, zip, nada, niente, zilch.
-
92
NASA Identifies The Hand of God
by Perry init even has what looks like blood flowing from a palm wound.
article.
world-renowned astrophysicist robert jastrow, founding director of nasas goddard institute for space studies, explains the fear of faith many of todays scientists experience.. there is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause; [but] there is no first cause.
-
-
Etude
I was picturing the middle finger of that cosmological hand as the most prominent thing reflecting back at us. But I looked really, really close (with a certain degree of disgust) at the ass of your dog and made out the image of Jesus. I think that if you blow that up into a large canine asshole and post it in a desert, you will have the faithful from all over the world coming to kiss it. You guys realize that if you were to look at that nebula from another totally opposite direction, like from Alpha Centauri, you would actually see someone having a bowel movement.
-
28
How was Adam Perfect? He sinned....Duh
by DS211 inwell an elder brought this up with me and said he didnt understand how adam sinned if he was perfect.
i said i dont see how he couldve sin ed if he was perfect....but he had free will to choose.
i then told him that i thought if god wanted us to obey him the worst thing he could do was create us to have free will.....a side thought i had was:.
-
-
Etude
It’s difficult to address this subject without mentioning the relative nature of “perfection” and of “sin”. I’ve always used the following example: If a parent forbids a 2 or 3-year old to go near the top flight of stairs, the parent is dictating for the child what is good and bad. In fact, that is the case for a good period of a child’s development. Rules are set and there is punishment for disobedience. Does that mean that going near the top flight of the stairs is bad? No. The parent does it. It’s only bad for the toddler because the parent says so.
The point is the relativity of the act. I’m sure that someone put a lot of thought into existing arguments about what happened to Adam and Eve and it seems much of it make sense (in a limited way). The fruit was inconsequential. It could have been a rock upon which they were forbidden to sit on. The point was the act of choosing and deciding to determine for themselves what set of rules they would go by. To choose their own would automatically be a rejection of any other. Obedience would no longer be an issue. Maybe the designers of such a story had something, a very fundamental principle to illustrate.
The question of perfection is also relative. What is perfection? I think an instrument such as a piano is perfect. There’s very little room for improvement in it, even after centuries. It fundamentally remains the same. Some other radical change would probably render it NOT a piano but some other new instrument. That means it’s perfect for the reason it was designed. If a being is designed to have the ability to choose using free will, then the possibility for choosing a detrimental course is built in. Otherwise, to prevent certain outcomes would be to pre-program the entity with limitations and less than free will.
The problem I see with all of that is that if there are consequences to choices not sanctioned by God, the serpent or the Devil seems to have received very little by way of results. Yeah, he was cast out of heaven. But it seems he’s OK with that. On top of it, he seems to enjoy wreaking havoc in the world. It also doesn’t make sense why God would allow all of this to happen (especially the suffering), instead of killing Adam & Eve and the Devil and his fallen angels and start over. Nothing God does, as the ultimate arbiter, would be bad or evil or wrong, just as it is not bad or evil or wrong for a parent to forbid a child from approaching the top of the stairs or any other thing that the parent decides in the interest of the child. But that’s the point. The God of A & E is not acting logically…perhaps because he doesn’t exist.
-
42
Could really use some help regarding legal letter to avoid DF
by Comatose ini used to have a webpage saved and i have lost it.
a young man and his wife had faded.
they had a birthday party for their child and were called before a judicial committee.
-
-
Etude
Although I regrettably agree with you (I understand your legal argument), I never would have thought that corporations would in my wildest dreams be considered “persons”. And yet, here we are. I also never thought that in Florida, the stand-your-ground law would acquit someone for killing another person and give another in a lesser offense, but for the same reason, a 20+ year sentence. You must admit that even though such letters amount to a crap-shoot or a poker game with the elders, it is possible that they would be considered sufficiently to make them back off.
I remember a specific story about a guy who crashed his airplane while he had been drinking. His lawyer in turn sued Cesna, the company that made the generator, the plane tire manufacturer and everyone in between. Companies decided to settle for the simple economic reason that it cost too much to litigate the growing number of suits.
I came from a time when in IT, companies would send each other “cease and desist” letters just because their product was "infringing" on the “look and feel” of some other product. We think that’s ridiculous now. But it worked then.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that one should send out such a letter without the intent and the means of at least dragging their sorry asses into court. The danger is that the WTBTS may decide to make an example of one such case and back the elders with some of the money we have all so blindly contributed.
-
36
Topics not often discussed now
by jdubsnub inwhen i was a kid in the early 90's there always seemed to be a mention of how demons posessing people or how if you saw a demon or something supernatural occuring mearly calling jehovah's name would rid you of the situation.
rarely now a days do you hear anything of the sort.
that got me to thinking, what are some other topics the society has backed off of?
-
-
Etude
The “anal” and “oral” sex thing has shifted many times in the list of dos and don'ts. Once, I argued with a friend (a pioneer) that the society had not condemned oral sex. This is after he told me that he communicated to his bible study that it was “porneia”. The study had told him that his wife liked it and that it was the best way to please her and that not doing it might jeopardize his marriage. I was shocked that the pioneer would put his study between a rock and a hard place and so I pulled up a Watchtower (or maybe it was an Awake! in the “readers question”) that said it was a matter of conscience. He didn’t care. He accused me of being “un-Christian”. I thought that was over the top and cut him off. Every time we met from that point onward, I would simply say hello. My silence was deafening. I told him that if he ever expressed the un-Christian label again to anyone, I would take him up before a committee. It’s unfortunate, because I think his views were driven by overactive compensation from being a repressed homosexual. If not that, then he was a misogynist. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. But I think he couldn’t live with it and had to go to the extreme of keeping sex traditional and straight.