I recall a JW (who happened to have a preexisting fear of dogs) telling a story at a meeting in which a dog charged at him while out in service only to be stopped dead by an angel. It was definitely an angel. Had nothing to do with the chain around the dog's neck that he was too panicked to notice.
OneEyedJoe
JoinedPosts by OneEyedJoe
-
22
What do the Angels do?
by LovingLifeNow inso what exactly have they been doing now , with the exception of intervening thousands of years ago, what exactly do they do in heaven?
.
-
-
-
5
The One-Electron Universe | Space Time
by Brokeback Watchtower inrichard feynman's idea.
that's the guy who said if someone claims to know quantum physics doesn't know quantum physics and just shut up and calculate.
maybe everything is just one thing like the mystics claim.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dqtw9mslfk.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
It's an interesting thought, but there appears to be some as-yet undiscovered asymmetry between matter and antimatter that has resulted in there being more elections than positions in the universe. This would preclude there being only one election, as that would require equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This was mentioned in the video, but it doesn't surprise me that you ignored it considering your history of affinity for using your misunderstanding of quantum mechanics to justify a belief in Deepak Chopra style bullshit.
Also, that Feynman quote was from several decades ago. Using it to, in effect, say, "no one understands quantum mechanics so no one can tell me my nonsense ideas about it are wrong" is fallacious. People understand quantum mechanics now. Or do you also quote people saying that heavier than air manned flight will never be possible to conclude that airplanes must be lighter than air?
-
34
For those who are athest, or non-christian, how did you come to this decision?
by Tameria2001 ini'm not asking this question to cause an argument or accuse, but i am honestly just wondering?
for those of you who are now atheist or non-christian, how did you come to this decision?
i hadn't given this much thought until about a year ago.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
When I was in my late teens I started thinking about a lot of things more objectively - you see I really internalized the idea of being a "truthseeker" from the cult, I guess I just missed the point that truth=cult. I was also in college getting a degree in computer science engineering at the time, so I was taking a lot of courses on logic, statistics, etc and got interested in rationality and logical fallacies. I learned how to spot logical fallacies and started seeing them in every theist's argument for the existence of god. Usually taking the form of special pleading, appeals to authority or appeals to consequences. When I thought about this stuff I often found myself thinking "If I weren't a JW I'd definitely be an atheist" or "If I hadn't been born into being a JW, there's no way I'd ever become one." Unfortunately life got in the way and a few things happened that caused me to fall back into the cult mind control for another 10 years or so, but if I'd been honest with myself, I'd have become an atheist back then. Once I woke up to the mind control of the cult, I wasted no more time with theism.
If you're really interested in finding truth, I'd start by learning how to really be rational and how to beat the in-built biases that we all have that make us tend to be irrational. Here's where I'd focus:
Learn about logical fallacies. This wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies As you learn about these, try to spot places where you have in the past or where you're still relying on one of these fallacies to justify some belief. You don't have to look at your belief in god to start - the more invested you are the harder it will be to attack a belief, so start with small things - maybe little bits of trivia that you've never verified but you still tell people, etc. Many people, when learning about logical fallacies, learn to apply them to other people but still have a hard time applying their new skill to their own beliefs - don't fall into this trap. If you do this, you use rationality to make yourself stupider.
Actively try to find places where your beliefs are wrong. Again, maybe don't start with religion...maybe start with some political view that you're drawn to but aren't very invested in one way or the other. Research the counter arguments for what is your gut feeling. Make arguments for your stance and then pick them apart as though they were another person's argument and you are arguing against it.
When you discover that you've been wrong - celebrate! Shove aside the shame that we all instinctively feel when we find out that we've been wrong, and instead celebrate that you're now wrong about one less thing. Everyone everywhere is walking around with at least one wrong belief, and being wrong feels a lot like being right...it's when you find out that you've been wrong that you feel bad, but that's precisely the moment when you should celebrate your success. This may seem like a little thing, but I suspect that a great deal of people's irrationality about things stems from a fear of accepting the shame of having been wrong. If you can eliminate this feeling of shame from yourself, you eliminate a large source of bias.
Learn about Bayesian inference. This is a remarkably simple, but extremely powerful tool for coming to accurate beliefs. This is a method of essentially assigning a probability for the truth of an idea (its credence) and then updating based on information. It's a quantitative tool, but just having a qualitative grasp on the idea is very helpful.
If you want to challenge belief in god directly, there are lots of good books out there, one that many people have found helpful is Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." For a great (but long) primer on rationality, I can't reccomend Eliezer Yudkowsky's "Rationality: From AI to Zombies" enough. It's long and delves in to a number of topics that are a little bit more philosophical, and it spends a fair amount of time on discussions of artificial intelligence, but I found most of the diversions quite interesting as well, and they were typically still very helpful as metaphors.
-
15
Dating another Woke exJW or no?
by caves ini find that the people here speak in a way i can understand because we have one thing in common if nothing else.
so my question is , would it be easier to date someone that has been a jw and woke up or not?.
i would love for someone to 'get it' without having to explain much.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
I wouldn't specifically look for an exJW, just date people that you're interested in. In my view it mostly turns out as a wash, with some slight disadvantages to dating an exJW, perhaps. This is speaking generally, of course, and is far from a hard rule.
Pro: You'll have a built in short-hand for talking about your past trauma, and they'll be able to immediately understand some of the challenges specific to your transition from being a JW to being a normal person in society.
Con: You won't be forced to actually think through how to explain what you experienced to someone to whom it is all new. Being forced to do this can help you come to a new understanding of your past and how to move forward. Furthermore, there's something to be said for dating someone who's willing to put in the effort to understand your past despite being completely unfamiliar with it. This can be a great litmus test to determine if someone is truly interested in you and your well-being or if they're just dating you for what they hope you'll give them.Pro: You'll have someone who can truly commiserate on what it was like to be raised as a JW.
Con: You might find yourselves dwelling on your JW past in a sort of positive feedback loop that is not conducive to moving on with your life.Pro: You'll both understand the language of the cult.
Con: You'll keep using the loaded language of cultspeak instead of moving on and talking like a normal person.Pro: You'll both understand what the other is dealing with as far as their still-in JW family is concerned.
Con: Double the amount of family craziness and no family to help integrate you into normal society.Depending on your circumstances it might also be nice to date someone that can understand the struggles of past trauma, but I would point out that JWs do not have a monopoly on trauma and when you boil it down it's all really very similar, if of different scales. And there's something to be said for dating a normal person that doesn't have demons in their past but can still be compassionate to those that do.
Personally, I think you should enjoy your freedom and date whoever you're interested in dating. I also think there's something to be said for dating both exJWs and normal folk (though exJWs are in much shorter supply...another downside) and just find what you like. Don't rush into anything, there's no formula or guidebook you can follow to get it exactly right on the first try - just try stuff and see how things work out and learn from the mistakes as you make them and strive not to repeat them. Have fun, life isn't so serious.
-
32
Hidden Doctrines
by jhine in" religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers ".
the above sentence was posted on another thread as part of a quote taken from jwfacts .
l commented that this was a sweeping generalisation of the kind often made about all religions .
-
-
OneEyedJoe
They're not "hidden." That was never the claim. Let's look at the quote from your original post again:
Religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers
As I said, you're moving the goalposts - these are offensive, morally reprehensible doctrines that are not volunteered to newcomers. You might hear an occasional intellectually dishonest, fallacy laden sermon trying to explain away a natural disaster in order to somehow make it consistent with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god that is interested in humans because adherents need an excuse to keep believing in the face of such powerful disconfirming evidence. Or maybe there'll be a sermon loudly proclaiming the hellfire that the unconverted will suffer for their failure to be convinced of the existence of god based on appeals to authority. But if someone comes to a church for the first time and asks the preacher what the doctrine is, that's hardly what he'll open with.
You're tacitly defending the bible as that is what your religion claims to be based upon. Unless, I've misunderstood and part of anglican doctrine is that the bible has nothing to do with god. Please, educate me.
You have given a list of the things that you find morally disgusting , how do you know about these things if they are " hidden " . That is at the heart of my post
Then the heart of your post is the combination of the no true scottsman fallacy and equivocation on the original quote, changing it from "not volunteered" to "hidden." If you're going to claim that doctrine isn't hidden because I know about it, then it will be impossible for me to dispute your claim even in principle. But fine, I know about these "hidden" doctrines of the bible because I was a christian for 28 years and they, among many, many others, troubled me for a great deal of that time. None of these things were volunteered to me. At best, they were hinted at by people making excuses for them. I had to go and find out on my own what people were making excuses for, only to find out that the excuses were hardly satisfactory.
In the end, I don't expect I'll ever change the mind of the self-deluded. I just think it's beneficial for the world if poor reasoning and overwrought claims of victimhood get pointed out for what they are. I don't know the exact context of the quote that caused you to start this thread, but while it is possible that it's a bit of a sweeping generalization, it certainly applies to your faith. Your offense at the suggestion that your denomination contains objectionable doctrine that is not volunteered to newcomers is not an argument against the truth of that suggestion.
-
32
Hidden Doctrines
by jhine in" religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers ".
the above sentence was posted on another thread as part of a quote taken from jwfacts .
l commented that this was a sweeping generalisation of the kind often made about all religions .
-
-
OneEyedJoe
If the Christians used only the sayings of Jesus there is very little any one could find fault in. So I guess it's some of the Old testament stories and morality tales that a new convert would find objectionable, and may not be aware of.
Lol oh do go on, then.
I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Woohoo! Thoughtcrime!
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words ... It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Certainly didn't have a very kind view toward people like me that are averse to believing things without evidence on the basis of authority alone.
God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Death penalty for those practicing free speech!
He that is not with me is against me.
Gotta love his dichotomous thinking!
It goes on and on. Just because Jesus said some things that were considerably better than the barbaric nonsense in the old testament doesn't mean he was all good, or would even be considered good in modern times.
-
32
Hidden Doctrines
by jhine in" religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers ".
the above sentence was posted on another thread as part of a quote taken from jwfacts .
l commented that this was a sweeping generalisation of the kind often made about all religions .
-
-
OneEyedJoe
l am an Anglican , a member of the Church of England . What do you consider are the offensive doctrines of my faith group ? Or Buddhism ? The reason that l find this statement offensive is because when JWs talk to people at front doors , on carts etc they do gloss over much of the stuff that would cause someone to cut and run , and will actually lie ( Theocratic Warfare ) if asked about the more embarrassing stuff . To say that all religions do this implies that l .as a member of a faith group , do the same . Neither l , nor anyone l know would do this . As main stream faith groups make up the biggest percentage of Christians in the world that is tarring a lot of people with the JW brush . The nasty stuff like the Crusades and the religious intolerance of the Tudors is taught in schools and is widely known about .
I'm going to talk more in terms of moral disgust than offense, due to the modern connotations of claiming something to be offensive. I find the doctrine that my eternal fate depends on my belief in things on bad (or no) evidence to be disgusting. The doctrine of infinite punishment for the offense(s) of a finite lifetime is disgusting. The implications of a supposed omnibenevolent, omnipotent being existing at the same time as as a billion people suffer in poverty make that being morally disgusting, so the doctrine that insists that I have love for such a being and worship this being is disgusting. The endorsement of a book that itself endorses slavery is disgusting. I could go on and on.
None of these things are openly advertised by adherents to christianity, but they're aspects of all christianity. You're moving the goal posts here in saying that the quote you began the thread with paints christians as liars or deliberately hiding objectionable doctrine. It simply said that these things are not readily volunteered by the religious, which I think is invariably true. In many cases this comes out of people just being intellectually lazy and not actually looking at what objectionable things exist in their religion. In others it comes from a discomfort at the facts and resultant avoidance (which, I guess is just another form of intellectual laziness).
On Buddhism, I don't know enough about it to say for sure that there's anything inherently disgusting about the doctrine, but I do know that the concept of kharmic rebirth does, in certain practices, result in discouraging providing help to the less fortunate based on the assumption that they're being punished for sins in their past lives. That's morally reprehensible. From what I know about Buddhism, this is not a very good interpretation of the spirit of the religion, but it nevertheless occurs.
But anyway, lets put your claim to the test. Why do you continue to endorse the bible when it endorses the owning of other humans as slaves? I'd like to see someone answer that question without either lying (or being deceptive) or indicting themselves as morally reprehensible.
-
32
Hidden Doctrines
by jhine in" religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers ".
the above sentence was posted on another thread as part of a quote taken from jwfacts .
l commented that this was a sweeping generalisation of the kind often made about all religions .
-
-
OneEyedJoe
The statement is an accusation , one that l find offensive . Like saying " all people with who can afford a Porsche must be criminals " There is no basis for either statement .
It's certainly not remotely as baseless as the example you gave. There are offensive doctrines in all christian denominations, all forms of judaism, and islam - that covers a huge swath of religious belief. Throw in some newer religions like scientology, mormonism (which, although it shares many of the offensive doctrines of christianity, managed to add its own novel ones), etc and there definitely seems to be a pattern here. None of these religions advertise their most offensive parts to outsiders, though they're all exposed in the modern age of free information.
-
32
Hidden Doctrines
by jhine in" religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers ".
the above sentence was posted on another thread as part of a quote taken from jwfacts .
l commented that this was a sweeping generalisation of the kind often made about all religions .
-
-
OneEyedJoe
If you subscribe to a particular faith, perhaps you'd like to put forth a counterexample to disprove the statement. It seems to be, if not entirely infallible, a pretty solid heuristic.
Do remember, though, that you could provide a counterexample in two forms - either by presenting a faith that has nothing offensive about it, or by presenting one that openly volunteers its most offensive doctrine.
-
7
Why don't JWs have problems with board games involving dice?
by cognisonance inso i don't really care about these things anymore, but i was reading this article (and it's a very good one): gamified life.. in the article it mentions (without references):.
dice-based games of chance are thought to have originated with ancient divination practices involving thrown knucklebones.. .
so it's okay to play yahtzee but not okay to go trick-or-treat.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
For my thoughts on this, see my post on a similar thread:
In short, it's because they ban things that might facilitate a JW finding commonality with a non-jw. Dice don't pose much of a threat.