The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  sunny23

  I have read about 45 pages of this thread as it seems to grow almost 20 pages every time I check.

  Referring back to the most recent summary for reference here but have learned A LOT from the individual posts and am extremely grateful for this threads contributions as it has drastically and effectively changed much of my views in a very short time! I still feel that some of the rationality regarding the “responses” to some theist claims are a bit misleading and/or presumptuous but I feel that perhaps it’s more that the responses need to be “cleaned up” to avoid confusion or even further disagreement with them. Working to address that now, be back soon, and thanks to Cofty and others for their persistence in this thread! ;-)
• 

  Miss.Fit

  Sunny23: I agree that this has been an enlightening discussion.

  I can't begin to express the range of emotions I have experienced just being able to participate in this kind of discussion.

  So this is what freedom feels like.

  I was so used to being told what to think.

  Cofty challenged me to stop and really think about my automatic responses.

  I kinda cheated.... I quietly waited to read responses similar to mine so I could see the way Cofty responded.

  I still reserve the right to make up my own mind.

  It has been an interesting journey.

  Miss.Fit
• 

  sunny23

  Ok so this is honestly my 9th attempt over the past 2 months at typing out a long response to give further backing to a theist argument to defend God's inaction only to re-read it before I post and delete it all. There really isn't a way in my eyes to give sound logic with or without the bible to give reason on this matter. Through both this thread and other sources i'm now aggnostic. I feel though concerning the existence or non existence of God, as this thread has brought up frequently that it is something to be argued between both theist and atheist scientists as brough out by Neil deGrassr Tyson (Atheist Astro Physicist) here in this video from 0:00 until 4:50 he explaines this. Interesting watch, if you would like to see the entire 1.5hr speech it is linked in the descption of this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA
• 

  DJS

  Sunny,

  Excellent post, and I will bet that a lot of lurkers see themsleves in you. Welcome to the road to atheism. I went through a simialar journey post-JW; after lots of study and research I became agnostic, then an atheistic leaning agnostic and then an atheist. I didn't make the transiition without years of study, research and meditation (and almost all of it was before the Internet's full capabilities to assist me - I would have loved to had Cofty's threat available to be 20 years ago). I'm so glad you understand that the bible is probably the weakest tool for theists. In fact I would say it may be the best argument atheists have.

  Thank you for posting the link. Tyson is correct; the best argument against theism is the scientific method. Upon completion of my master's degree, I was a full fledged atheist. I'm working on a PhD currently, and I can't imagine anyone with advanced degrees being a theist, but as Tyson points out, it will never go to '0." Some people need a personal god.

  Those of us who don't need a personal god, IMHO and suggested by scientific studies on the topic, to behave and be ethical are more highly evolved. It is where all humanity needs to be in order to solve the myriad of problems facing us. Religion will always be more divisive and destructive than otherwise. Does anyone really think the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. etc. will ever truly get along without wars, terrorism, economic disparity, etc.? Will secular humanism solve all of the problems? Probalby not, but it has a much better chance.

  Good luck to you, and I will be preparing your official atheist ceritificate.
• 

  Apognophos

  Those of us who don't need a personal god, IMHO and suggested by scientific studies on the topic, to behave and be ethical are more highly evolved.

  I can't quite agree with this. I think that there are plenty of people out there who are not believing in God because they need a reason to be ethical, but because they have physical and emotional anxieties that are soothed by having someone to pray to. Furthermore, many of these people are quite accepting of others' beliefs. They won't go to war with someone just because that person believes differently.

  As for the supposed divisiveness of religion, the simple truth is that most of the division between Christians, Jews and Muslims is ethnic. The religious schism between them is sometimes brought up by people as if it's significant, but it's a total red herring. No one even knows much about the other side's beliefs. The fear and animosity is just because they see foreign faces who are angry about some perceived or actual injustice, and the foreignness frightens them. It's xenophobia, and it would still be there if everyone was atheist.

  If people really cared about whether others had the same religion, then Catholics wouldn't fight Catholics in a war. People would not be prejudiced against any ethnic group that immigrates to their country in large numbers, only the ones who have a different religion. But that's not what we see. Ethnic differences trump everything else as the cause of fighting in this world.
• 

  jgnat

  How about deist?

  I just read what a deist is and I'm not quite that either. I believe organized religion does have a critical role to play in our society and is not an anachronistic or even harmful leftover. We may require religious fervor or its equivalent to inspire us to group action.

  I'm reading a book from an empirical scientist and agnostic (Haidt) who argues that human morality includes qualilties of reverence, sanctity. Which we express through religion.

  I have also suggested how we can reconcile a disaster with the concept of a loving god.
• 

  DJS

  Aprognophos,

  I understand your comments and find agreement with them. Having said that, humans will never reach the full potential locked in their DNA as long as they rely on a make believe character to make them behave. Only by doing the right thing for the sake of goodness itelf (I call it the Santa clause) will mankind fulfill its potential. Behaving because you fear punishment or seek a reward means bad DNA gets passed on. The 'good' behaviior is simply externally driven rather than internally driven.

  Einstein said the same thing decades ago, and his comments were posted on this site just a few days ago: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, educaton and social ties and needs;no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."

  Empirical data suggests atheists behave better (I have the research and have posted it before), from the BOJ's crime and incarceration stats to the differences between religious nations and secular nations as reflected in crime of all types, etc.. The data is there for anyone to see.

  I wish all of you could understand that we can evolve to be better, and this will occur much quicker if we leave religion behind and do good for goodness sake. The genes we pass along are primarily stamped in our code at conception, but the field of epigenetics shows there is much much more to it. Our DNA is much more malleable.
• 

  Miss.Fit

  *Bttt Cofty will be updating his summary soon?(join me for a cup while we wait)

  *Is there a page limit to a thread? We might have to wade through another 100 pages?
• 

  humbled

  Along these lines of thought, Jgnat, Apog, Miss.fit and DJS,

  Dr. Tyson in a conversation with Bill Moyers this past month spoke of the unfortunate necessity of appointing a "name" for phenomena before science knows exactly what a particular phenomenon consist of--Before they know what a thing actually IS. The naming of it presents into the minds of the less knowledgable layman a misleading expectation/description of what may actually constitute thing so named:Black Hole, dark matter were a few(if memory serves).

  A problem in discussing GOD also has to do with the problem of naming a perception many of us have of a thing that draws us like gravitational force. How can we talk about that sense of the unseen and inexpressible THING(possibility? unknown-or-unknowable?) and how it relates to searching for, needing, and improving on what is good? To name it is to create prejudice in the minds of ---all of us--laymen all in the matter.

  Personally, to ignore a pull that is as strong as gravity seems as wrong as those who in scripture and theology may have invented "GOD" definitions and attributes out of ignorance.

  Maeve

  and,speaking of gravity--Where does it come from? why does it work? Science says it is a mystery yet.
• 

  Apognophos

  Is there a page limit to a thread? We might have to wade through another 100 pages?

  I think the thread is basically over. Now we're just in a reflective, post-argument phase, talking about related subjects. After all, one of the main participants in the thread was banned several pages ago, so that's naturally gonna put a damper on the debate. But I think most everyone has had their say by now.

  Behaving because you fear punishment or seek a reward means bad DNA gets passed on.

  I'm not sure what you mean here. The DNA that gets passed onto our children is randomly selected. Did you mean that differences in behavior will promote one pool of people over another, so some genes take over more of the human gene pool? I'm just not sure how religious belief would be selected for or against by natural selection.

  Empirical data suggests atheists behave better (I have the research and have posted it before), from the BOJ's crime and incarceration stats to the differences between religious nations and secular nations as reflected in crime of all types, etc.. The data is there for anyone to see.

  While I'm raining on people's parades, I might as well rain on the secular humanist one a little too. People who are well educated tend to be better off materially. People who are doing well materially feel less of a need for God, and are also less criminally prone because they live in luxury. In other words, it's less about atheists having good genes and more about their being in circumstances that do not incline them towards amoral behavior.

  Most people, if they do think about committing a crime, will decide not to do so out of fear of punishment by the authorities. So already a person is behaving a certain way because of a fear of something. Believing that further punishment may come after death provides an additional motive not to commit crime. Can everyone really live a moral life without that additional motive for being good?

  It's nice to think that we can all rise above crime by standing on our own two feet without religion's help, but we're also sitting in comfy chairs, in front of computers, ensconced in first world luxury. It's easy to be morally inclined when we're living in comfort. Few of us have suffered violent crime and the depredations of poverty.

  People are shaped by their experiences, so if we're going to get people to be more moral, the key is not to kick the crutch known as theism out from under them, it's to provide a substitute in the form of education and honest work opportunities. If we do that, most people will leave behind dogmatic religion because it won't be a needed comfort for them.