Religious people lack imagination sometimes. I'll help you along: "Hey - just think of the thousands of hurricanes and earthquakes etc. God has prevented from happening, in God-fearing parts of the world!!" Aha!
Awakened07
JoinedPosts by Awakened07
-
38
22,000 Dead So Far in Myanmar
by Rapunzel inand i wonder, where could god be now?
) either god wanted to eliminate evil and could not.
if option number two is the case, god is evil.
-
-
-
44
GB sidles out of 1919 and puts 1914 in the bin. (WT study.)!!
by hamsterbait inhas anybody noticed in many recent watchtowers that christ is now said to have "turned his attention to the earth in 1914.".
unlike the 60's they do not say christ "came" in 1914. the "proclaimers book " p137 says the bible students came to discern that "christ did not return, (even invisibly), in 1914.".
the way is now paved.
-
-
Awakened07
Seriously, I thought the quote between the quotation marks in your post was something you made up as a spoof on how they'd spin it. Is this really true?
If so, isn't this rather huge, as has been said above?
I'm just curious. The way the Watchtower distributes its 'new light', in this very out-of-sight way, never truly announcing it, but sneaking it in and saying "Some
idiotspeople still think [or believe]", "There are those who believe", when "those" are in fact Witnesses, who are not allowed to think anything different than what they've been previously taught by the selfsame Watchtower! How can "these people" believe anything else, when they haven't been told what the new light is yet?? They spin it like it's now self evident that it's [this, that and the other] way, and that "some people" (which obviously has to refer to Witnesses, who else) erroneously still believe the "old light", but what else would they believe?? Seriously, you'd think some of the resident Messiah complex sufferers had written this.This sneaking in of new doctrine after new doctrine - - - won't it over time (already, I suspect) create a system of chaos? How many Witnesses are actually up to date now on all these things?
-
57
A New Theory of the Universe
by BurnTheShips inrobert lanza has literally written the book on stem cell science and delves into the issue of consciousness, reality, and a biocentric view of the universe.. .
while i was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently.
why does the universe exist?
-
-
Awakened07
I can't treat this with the intensity I would have wanted to; I don't have time at least not this week. But I'll try to comment briefly.
But if the scientists do not observe the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of a wave.
Ok, this has been disturbing me for years. How can you 'not' observe a particle?
-This is a good question for two reasons; 1) You're thinking, and 2) it's key to understanding why quantum theory is surrounded sometimes by a shroud of mystery. There is some strangeness to findings and experiments in quantum theory, but it's not necessarily as mysterious as it's often said to be.
What goes on at the quantum level is not dependent on us humans as the observer. If so, we would have to constantly observe every single atom for anything to ever happen. But these processes happen whether we observe them or not. The problem with "observing" what goes on at this microscopic (or sub-microscopic) level, is that light at this level is individual photons; we're used to seeing objects because light bounces off of them, but these particles are so small that if we attempt to "observe" their behavior, the photons we use to do so affect the result.. If we do observe it happening, we have to choose what "hole" we wish to "keep an eye on" that the particle will go through. If we don't observe, the particle goes through both "holes" as a wave, as our instruments can show us. If I've understood this correctly, it actually behaves like a wave both times, but as observers at this sub-microscopic level we have to choose what "hole" to observe. I may have to revise these sentences somewhat later, but this is the gist of how I understand it.
Darn it, I'm out of time, I have to run off to work. Aargh.
OK, I'll try to clarify this when I get home then. Time flies.
I just have to jot down some "cliff notes" while I remember: If we are creating reality as we observe it, it would mean we couldn't make predictions of the behavior of nature in science. If we can do so because the framework of reality has been created by God (or "God"), and we're just re-creating reality off of that framework, it means God has created a framework that includes evidence of how the universe came to be via a "big bang" (background radiation etc.). But if God created this framework and we're re-creating it, it means he didn't create the universe physically in that manner in the first place, because we are then continuously creating it off of a framework. This would be deceptive of God.
If this makes little sense, I'll try to explain further when I get back. Gotta go!
-
24
The Death Thread
by Open mind indo you fear death?
i typed in "fear death" into the search feature and it looks like jwd hasn't had a "death thread" in quite a while.
i'd really enjoy hearing the perspectives of current posters.
-
-
Awakened07
I'm not afraid of death as such. I would like to live forever actually, but that's not in the cards as I see it. Going back to oblivion like before birth is in itself not something I fear, but I hate the thought of not continuing living.
But fear - it depends on how it happens too. If I'm in a situation where I know where it's headed, I'll probably freak out like everyone else. And I'm 'afraid of' the pain and agony sometimes associated with death. If I however go to sleep in my eighties and never wake up, then it's really nothing I fear.
But it does suck. It's a slim - although real - 'comfort' knowing that it's happened to everyone before me as well, though.
If it turns out there actually is something after death I'll be surprised, but it'll be a welcomed bonus.
-
50
Atheist need to start fighting fire with fire LITERALY
by 5go ini was watching some program on the inquisition.
you know that thing christianity would love for you to forget happened.. when the court system of rome failed the christian courts took over they instituted trial by ordeal.. simply put any accused of a crime would be tortured tested to see if they were innocent by many forms of painful test to see if god would come to the accused's defence.
if they were innocent then no harm would happen to them because of their faith, of course pretty much 100% of the time they were hurt an were summarily executed punished with all the love of jesus in mind.. atheist should due the same accuse all of christians of crimes and force them into trial by ordeal to prove their innocence and backed by god.
-
-
Awakened07
I am, as I say "currently an atheist", pending evidence of the contrary. I do not agree with 'militant atheists'. Atheists should fight for their right to speak their mind in society, but other than that, it's more important to fight for proper education in schools. As long as people really learn about science and pseudo-science and what the difference is, and how to discern between the two on their own, I'm not going to stop them from believing in something supernatural. Most likely many would eventually stop believing because of that education, but many would not, and I don't see the conflict. It's important that fundamentalism from any camp does not adversely affect the lives of others. As an atheist, one has to acknowledge that this life is all there is, so if some people feel they have a better life believing something maybe even they themselves suspect is not real, I wouldn't stop them, unless it included beliefs that would impede on my (and others') freedom. There are some prominent, actual scientists who are still theists, like for instance Kenneth Miller. It's a choice he's made, and it's not for lack of information or education or intelligence. But he's also not a fundamentalist in any way.
So - instead of torture, we need to give people proper scientific education, and let them reach their own conclusions based on that. It's perhaps easier for the likes of me because I've grown up with creationism and know what it's about and what it's arguments and agenda and "work ethics" are, and how they do not hold up to true scientific scrutiny and thought. People should see both sides properly though and decide. Not all would fall down on the side of mainstream science, some would choose not to pretty much "out of spite" or to 'be special', or because they're afraid of "dogmatism of the majority view" (which in itself would be a misunderstanding of proper scientific thought and processes). But it is my hope at least, that when properly presented with science, people would side with that. And even if that wouldn't mean they'd become atheists, it would be enough for me personally, that they at least would know how the world works according to our most current understanding.
"What the world needs now - - is education, sweet education. That's the only thing - - that there's just too little of."
-
70
If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?
by slimboyfat inmany who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.
some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.
do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?
-
-
Awakened07
But "non-believer" as I understand the terms does not equate with someone who claims belief in nothing as I have tried to sketch.
In that case I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who 'believes nothing'. I guess I can do a Bill Clinton and say it depends on what the definition of 'believes' is, but if the words 'believes' and 'accepts' or 'holds true' are mutually replaceable, I don't think you'll find anyone who 'believes nothing'.
-
70
If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?
by slimboyfat inmany who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.
some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.
do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?
-
-
Awakened07
Hmm - I've often thought it must be harder for those who continue to believe in something. Well, especially the Bible.
If something Witnesses teach comes up in a conversation, and they say "Well, it was that way in biblical times as well, just see here.", I can say "Sorry, but because of [this, that and the other], I no longer believe the Bible to be the word of God, so even if you can show me how it used to be, that holds no weight with me." Whereas if I still believed in the Bible as the word of God, I would have to come up with a different interpretation of those scriptures to prove them wrong, but most likely we would have to agree to disagree, because there are thousands of different interpretations for almost any scripture.
in what terms can a person who "believes nothing" also assert that he rejects the truth claims of Jehovah's Witnesses? What language can he possibly use to express such rejection that does not necessarily imply other positive beliefs?
This is a rather common thought from those who do believe in something, because in their universe, God does exist, and everyone else is deluding themselves. But - in my universe, God does (most likely) not exist. So - does that mean I positively believe something opposite to what the JWs or other religious people believe? Not viewed from 'my universe'. From my view, I have only removed JW claims as truth for a reason, and that's it. Of course, from the perspective of someone who believes in either Jehovah or another God, this is not possible, because God is still there, so therefore, from their perspective, I positively chose to believe the opposite of JWs (or other religious people). JWs are wrong because of [this, that and the other], and I have replaced it with - - - - nothing. Well, nothing when it comes to a belief in God, anyway. It does follow that I now "believe" science has found certain answers to life's mysteries, but I can actually visualize people turned atheist who wouldn't actually even need to do that. They could use logic as a way of rejecting God, and have no real opinion on science. By the way, I feel these arguments present a very black or white way at looking at things. The world is full of beautiful gray in-between.
Take the blood issue for example. Should someone refuse blood that can save their life? If I assert that one should not refuse blood does this not imply a range of positive beliefs such as: the medical profession gives the best medical advice; the Bible does not forbid blood transfusion; preserving life is more important than following purity rules; this life is all there is; heartache should be avoided if at all possible. Which of those sentiments you refer to in your rejection of Witness policy will depend on whether you believe in God and the Bible or affirm secular values, but in order to make sense when stating that life-saving blood transfusion should not be refused you need implicitly to draw upon at least some such positive statements of belief. If you do not believe in God, the Bible, the value of preserving human life and preventing sorrow, then what basis is there left for asserting that refusing life-saving blood would be wrong?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you believe that atheists or agnostics place no value on preventing sorrow, preserving life etc.? The statements I've highlighted in yellow above that - - I can agree with all of those and still be an atheist. Of course, the part about the Bible not forbidding transfusions would perhaps be a little out of place, but in a conversation with a JW, I could still use that argument, just as much as someone who does believe in the Bible. I don't see the conflict here. If this life is all there is, it just becomes even more valuable, wouldn't you agree? If there were only one diamond in the world, wouldn't it be literally priceless because of it's rarity and 'irreplaceability'?
The same is true of other controversial aspects of Witness belief:
if you reject Witness chronology you affirm in some sense traditional historical/scientific methods of chronology (or else some other pre-critical "Bible" chronology).
Yes, one then most likely accepts the dating presented by secular scientists over theologians or religious people who may be experts but who have an emotional investment in their findings. Most likely (since this is a topic about those who believe nothing), one also rejects biblical history except for the few things that have been confirmed through archeology. But what is the point here? I don't get it. There are clear cut reasons why one chooses to accepts those things, it's not a belief one just jumps onto as a villy-nilly substitute. At least it shouldn't be. It should come from research.
If you reject Witness anti-patriotic sentiment you affirm patriotism whether that be jingoistic or humanitarian in focus.
I can't really say at this point. I do reject JWs anti-patriotic sentiment, but at the same time I'm a little wishy-washy with my patriotism (not an American btw, so don't go there, wherever 'there' is). In other words, this is a little area of 'gray' with me.
If you reject Witness disdain for charity and world-affirming projects for betterment then you embrace the notion than humans can and should try to improve our lot and not wait for God to act.
Yes, most likely. The point?
If you reject the Witness reading of the Bible then you necessarily accept some other reading: and that holds true whether that other reading happens to be a coherent systematic theology or simply a tendency to believe that the Bible offers no clear message at all, but many contextually specific meanings.
Yes - I still don't see how this is a problem. Oh - maybe I'm coming to it:
Personally I find it hard to say the Witnesses are wrong about anything. If I say they are wrong about what the Bible means, then don't I have to demonstrate what it does mean?
Umm - yes, but only if you still believe the Bible, but this thread is about those who believe nothing. Those who believe nothing, however, would probably have to say why that is in such a debate. But it most likely wouldn't be a rebuttal of a specific theological point in a specific scripture.
Otherwise how do I know they are wrong. I am in no position to do that. Are they wrong not to involve themselves as citizens in the running of the states in which they live? If I say they are wrong to take that position on what ground do I say political involvement is the best course?I like the idea of becoming an involved citizen, but I have no way of showing that this is the "correct" attitude to adopt, merely that it is what I find agreeable.
Yes - although the argument against them could seem a little weak. The argument would be some kind of version of the teacher in a classroom saying "Get that bubblegum out of your mouth! What if all of you were chewing gum? That'd be a right mess!" Of course, the response would be "But not all of us do, just a few". In the case of Witnesses, I guess they could say they're just a small group, but they are part of the community - things the politicians decide do influence them, and things they decide to do or not do (like voting) will affect them (and others) if they like it or not. If everyone behaved like them, we'd have anarchy. Of course, they'd say we'd have theocracy, but I don't see their kingdom halls being run directly by God.
And how can I tell a Witness that he should take blood? Personally I would prefer to preserve my own life if such a life-threatening situation arose. But then I have lots of preferences that don't seem to transfer easily to others. Why should this be different? How can I confidently assert that preserving life is the most important thing. I "feel" that it is, but on what objective basis can I show that to be the case without invoking yet more questionable assumptions and beliefs?
If there's one thing we can be 100% certain of (unless we're en route to the loony bin), is that we're alive now. We know we have this life. That's really all we know. It would be in our best interest to preserve that precious life no matter if we believe it to be a gift from God or not. It would be in the best interest to those around us as well. About taking blood, it's not so much that one should take blood anymore, it's more about accepting the best, most efficient medical help one can get. Sometimes that will include taking a transfusion, other times it may not because of micro invasive surgery methods they now have.
I don't think it's out of the realm of an atheist or agnostic to discuss Bible doctrine either, actually. Just like I can post comments about some fictional novel I have read, and discuss it with others on an internet forum and agree or disagree about it's meanings, I should be able to do the same with the Bible. I don't see why that's impossible. I could use the same arguments about blood, from the Bible, that is used by believers here when confronting a JW. I don't see the conflict in doing so.
-
26
Nobody is talking about the Generation change!!
by hamsterbait inevery time i have raised the noolite on this, it is met with blank looks and no comment.. on the phone it has been met with silence while they wait to see why i am talking about it.. has anybody else noticed this - it is a trend that less and less witlesses discuss doctrines and teachings when socializing.. could it be that they don't want to acknowledge a creeping disernment that they have been strung along, and so the gibbering buddy can no more be trusted on this claim than all the other failures, or is it that they are afraid of being called apostos?.
one elderly sister (90) who really thought she would never die, and is now, when i said i was atonished at the recent changes in 1935 annointed, generation and now no book group, just waited at the other end of the phone..
"so does this mean you think it is all rubbish?
-
-
Awakened07
I'll attend a JW family dinner soon. Let's see what happens. I won't be the one bringing anything up, though.
Dinner is over. Zero, nada, silch about doctrine or org.
I find it a little strange - although I don't mind - that they're not busy trying to save me, since the big A is just around the corner. Seriously, I'll die! And yet, the focal point was to have a good time together, which I don't mind at all, and don't really fault them for either. Sure, a few key JW words popped up here and there, but it never amounted to a conversation. It was all smiles and everyday friendly banter.
-
26
Nobody is talking about the Generation change!!
by hamsterbait inevery time i have raised the noolite on this, it is met with blank looks and no comment.. on the phone it has been met with silence while they wait to see why i am talking about it.. has anybody else noticed this - it is a trend that less and less witlesses discuss doctrines and teachings when socializing.. could it be that they don't want to acknowledge a creeping disernment that they have been strung along, and so the gibbering buddy can no more be trusted on this claim than all the other failures, or is it that they are afraid of being called apostos?.
one elderly sister (90) who really thought she would never die, and is now, when i said i was atonished at the recent changes in 1935 annointed, generation and now no book group, just waited at the other end of the phone..
"so does this mean you think it is all rubbish?
-
-
Awakened07
I'll attend a JW family dinner soon. Let's see what happens. I won't be the one bringing anything up, though.
-
9
ICR DENIED ACCREDATION BY TEXAS BOARD
by badboy inthey wanted to be able to give out science degrees, but were denied.
-
-