Soon after I left I lost ALL faith
IN everything
Very cynical
Very cautious
Very emotionless
Became an Objectivist, agnostic & Capitalist
Reality is that which exists. It is absolute.
It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary.
Things are what they are, independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions.
Reason is man's only means of knowing reality, upon which his survival in reality depends.
Whether man is alone on a desert island, scurrying around with a pack of savages, or living in a city of billions: man must think -- and then act on his thinking, if life is his goal.
Man is a rational animal, and reality dictates that to survive, man must be rational -- by choice.
Man is a being of free will. Man can choose to think, drift, or evade -- but choose he must. His thoughts determine: his character, his values, his emotions, and his actions, and so his thoughts determine his destiny.
As reason is solely the attribute of an individual, and man's thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny. The individual sovereign.
Man can gain immense values from living with other men in society -- namely knowledge and trade -- if it is a human society.
A human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an end in himself, and that other men are not his pawns, nor is he theirs.
Individualism is not opposed to man living in society. Individualism is opposed to man living in society as a slave.
To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator's, or a democratic mob's, whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute -- by right.
Man requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, derive.
Rights are moral principles defining a man's freedom of action in a social context.
Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon, i.e., a thief may rob you, but morally he is in the wrong, and you are in the right.
Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -- and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).
The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.
In a political context, freedom has only one meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men.
Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or brutally murdered. Only by the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival.
It is for this reason -- that force renders a man's mind useless -- that every man has the right to self-defense -- the right to use force to retaliate against those who first start the use of force, but never may one morally initiate it.
The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil; but, to initiate (start) force is evil. To use force in retaliation -- in self- defense against those who initiate it -- is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral man has nothing to gain when a man tries to kill him, but he has much to lose if he does not defend himself. For this reason it is right, just, and proper to use force in retaliation and self-defense. Contrary to the vile doctrines of the pacifists, force used in self-defense is a species of the good.
Man's state in nature, where all men are allowed complete discretion in the use of force, according to the laws of the jungle, is nothing more than a state of anarchy -- perpetual civil war and gang warfare. To place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control -- under clearly defined laws that are logically based on the principle of rights -- a society of men delegate to government, their right to retaliate against those who initiate force.
Government is an agency which has a monopoly on the use of physical force.
This legal power -- to use physical force -- only may be used for one purpose: to retaliate against those who initiate force, according to objectively defined laws.
Never is this power to be used to initiate force, but government is only permitted to retaliate and defend against those who initiate force.
As no individual in his private capacity -- as a citizen -- may morally initiate force against others, neither may he in his public capacity -- as a state official -- initiate force either.
Morally, no one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that reason claims to be for the "public good". (For is not the individual, whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also?)
What then does a proper government consist of? In order to protect rights, a government requires three things: an army -- to protect against foreign invaders, a police force -- to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system -- to settle honest disputes that arise, enforce contracts, and to punish criminals, according to objectively predefined laws.
To ensure that no despot -- whether that despot be a single dictator, a political pressure-group, or a befuddled "democratic" majority of the moment -- may usurp the powers of government, and turn its machinery upon any of its citizens, each and every aspect of government action is codified, and carried out, according to objectively defined laws.
In a free society each and every man lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men. The rule of law has only one proper purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed -- the individual.
Such a body of integrated, codified, and non-contradictory laws form objective legislation, which hold a man innocent until he can be proven guilty, as opposed to a library of irrational regulations which hold a man guilty until he can somehow prove himself innocent, to the gratification of some misanthrope able to gain a foothold in public office.
The supreme legal document of a proper society is the constitution -- a citizen's protection against both private criminals and public officials who seek to imitate the criminal's methods.
The purpose of the constitution is not to grant unlimited power to government, or to limit the rights of an individual, but to limit the power of government to its only valid purpose: the protection of individual rights. In other words, a citizen is free to do whatever he is not explicitly forbidden (under a proper legal system the only act forbidden is the violation of the rights); whereas, a state official is only allowed to carry out what is explicitly permitted.
Then I got older
Started looking at things again
I am in the process of changing again
Still believe in most of the above
Now find it necessary to add a spiritual component
It can all work todether
What determined the path you took once you came to your senses?
by donny 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
LockedChaos
-
OnTheWayOut
A serious study of WTS and its manipulative lies led to a serious study
of how they misuse the Bible. That led to a serious study of how the
Bible can be misused by anyone, which led to a serious study of how
the Bible came to be- not the word of God, but the words of men.In the end, I am an atheistic agnostic. I don't say there isn't a God, but
He will have to contact me to prove himself. I will only do His will if HE
personally tells me what it is. Organized religion- not for me, but I understand
others if they say they need it or want it. I was there, I suppose they reap
some benefits. Destructive mind-control cults, though- I would speak up to
free any who are being deceived. -
oompa
donny i have sorted things out much like you and have come to the same conclusions. it was alwasy crazy portions of the OT that made me cringe and not want to serve that god...so it is kinda funny that it was WT totally busting what faith i had by a direct letter. in their pathetic attempt to justify removing kyrios and theos from the NT and replacing it with jehovah 237 times they informed me that god has allowed satan to corrupt his word, and they have tried to fix it. since they had taught me 44 years that god would never allow his word to be tainted, and that he had divinely preserved it for all mankind, this did not sit too well. so I have lost all faith in god and that stupid corrupted bible....i mean what else would satan and his apostates change? why the hey would god not have written everyting in stone is some pyramid? everyone could go make their own copy or at least read the original....we basically have nothing..........oompa
-
Narkissos
Today "Inertia" comes up as the shortest and most honest answer to the title question.
"Chance," "God," "Fate," "Grace," "Life," "Social chaos dynamics" being second ex aequo.
"Will," "desire," "fear," "restlessness," "obedience," "disobedience," "faith" or "thoughtful decision" being only partial aspects of the above.
-
Quirky1
I am pretty agnostic. Believing in god is like believing in aliens...I will not believe in them unless they land in my backyard and and I see them for myself.
-
WTWizard
When God wants me to do everything to draw in everyone He wants into His life, but drives the opposite sex out of mine (and wants me to still be extremely effective in drawing them into His life) consistently, I came to view Him in the worst possible light.
And the Washtowel Slaveholdery, too.
Hence, I am against God, and against the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger. Now that I can see clearly from the Bible what kind of God Jehovah actually is, it is absolutely hopeless to get any kind of good out of that Almighty Scumbag. And so I have found the true Satan--the Satan that actually wants people to do their own thinking. Maybe Satan is not omnipotent and omniscient, but at least he is not willfully destructive of every hope and dream I have.
-
AllTimeJeff
My sole criteria came from a quote actually attributed to J F Rutherford in the WT. I sat up and took note of it constantly:
***
w9710/1p.6KnowJehovah—ThePersonalGod***It took Rutherford several years of careful research to rebuild his faith in a personal God. He worked, he said, from the premise that "that which cannot satisfy the mind has no right to satisfy the heart." Christians "must be sure that the Scriptures in which they believe are true," Rutherford explained, adding: "They must know the foundation on which they stand."—See 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
I thought that this was supposed to be what its all about. Obviously I learned through bitter experience that it isn't. But I tricked myself into believing that JW dogma can satisfy the mind.
When I left, I was in no hurry to join another group, and I am still not. But I try to be pragmatic about it. I consider myself agnostic not because of anger or bitterness toward thiests, but because it is the most intellectually honest position to be. No person of faith can prove anything about what they believe. (whether that belief is that the bible is gods word, Jesus was born of a virgin and died for our sins and then resurrected, to even the most personal things such as "god spoke to me". You can say it, but you can't prove it) Hence the need for "faith". As several have noted on this board, if you can see and prove it, you don't need faith that it exists. For this reason, I do believe that unreasoning zealous faith that is promoted and/or enforced by other people and groups is dangerous. (Read Sam Harris "The End of Faith")
I think that athiests have nothing to prove about their stated disbelief in the existence of god. The reason for their stated disbelief is a lack of evidence of god, so what else do they need to prove? Thiests often say "You can't disprove god". This kind of circular reasoning is designed for one thing, so thiests can continue to believe as they wish and to blunt the real problems and logical inconsistencies in their own belief system. It is as if instead of acknowledging the imperfection of their own beliefs, many still are determined to yell it out because they don't want to admit the possibility (probability) that their faith isn't correct. (or at least not the only one that out there) I think the burden of proof and evidence is definitely on those who say an invisible deity is in the heavens and demands certain conduct of us. Better be prepared to prove it!
Having said that, from my point of view, there is a level of "spirituality" (for lack of a better word, please work with me on it) that all of us have. (i.e. the need for a meaning and purpose to our life, that we matter, etc) I do see from time to time angry ex JW's. Whether they are thiests, athiests, or not, the anger isn't healthy over the long term. (short term is is absolutely necesarry) That isn't a criticism, just an observation. It's not my place to judge as I don't know what goes on in anyones head, but my guess is that anger comes in large part due to their own identity being robbed, that purpose in life and hope for the future being found false. That leaves a BIG void. I found that it true with me still. Do I consider the possibility that having my own thoughts about god could help me? Sure! And I do honor the value that personal faith has for some people. But that doens't mean that it works for everyone. And it doesn't mean that it should be promoted as the end all, that life SHOULD include god. That is just wrong.
In the end, we all need to be free from anger that can consume and come to a point where we feel our life has a purpose. That is what I try to do. I don't feel the need to believe anything that doesn't work for me. I see me being a spiritually minded agnostic for a very long time.
-
MissingLink
I thought that anything another person tells you could be BS. The only totally reliable source of information about the creator is by looking at his creation.
So I looked at it.
Everything is meticulously designed to kill or avoid being killed. Animals didn't start out nice, and then went bad because of poor management by humans. There is no physical evidence of a "loving creator". If there is a god - he is a sadistic bastard. I can't imagine there is though. The scientific evidence of evolution is beyond quesioning at this point.
It seemed to me only the weak minded need the crutch of religion, and will stop at nothing to make excuses for the inaction or cruel behavior of their 'god'. (no offence believers - just my perspective, not looking for a flame war)
-
Sirona
Could I just say that too many people reject the idea of a higher power (god) based upon the things they find in the bible.
The bible is just ONE religious text. It isn't the answer to everything, not by a long shot.
Also why are we assuming that "God" is a conscious entity?
Sirona
-
AllTimeJeff
Could I just say that too many people reject the idea of a higher power (god) based upon the things they find in the bible.
The bible is just ONE religious text. It isn't the answer to everything, not by a long shot.
Also why are we assuming that "God" is a conscious entity?
Sirona
Sirona
I don't disagree with you. I don't necesarrily rule out a higher power, a higher form of life that we don't as of yet understand, have discovered, etc. I also agree with you that assuming this higher power is a consciuos entity is grossly overstating what is known. There are many theories on this, each as legitimate as believing that god was born of a virgin, led a perfect life and offered it as a blood human sacrifice to his father, only to be resurrected 3 days later. It's just as legitimate to believe something else.
If I were to ever get involved with a group again, I think the Unitarians have to as right as can be had. They honor all creeds and your personal experience along with science. The believe in being logical and rational while their group tries to be "spiritual". (there's that word again.) It's that acceptance of all and the stated desire to help those less fortunate that I find appealing, although I am a long way off from even stepping foot into a Universalist church.