Posts by cognizant dissident

181

The Dawkins Delusion

by brotherdan in

so, i recently finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins.

i read it with a certain amount of hesitation.

after all, i am still recovering from my disappointment at realizing that the wts is not god's organization.

cognizant dissident

Brother Dan:

Faith can be based upon scientific reasoning, but in the case of faith in God, it is not, and it is not intellectually dishonest for Dawkins to point that out!

404

The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

by AGuest in

jw
friends

dear ones.

rather, it is our adversary who says we will do anything... anything... to avoid it.

a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. even curse god to his face.

You like made up stories ;-), so you might enjoy this book I'm reading called "The Red Tent". It is a fictionalized telling of the story of Rebecca, Rachel, Leah and Dinah with Dinah as the central character. If women had written the Bible from their point of view and were able to tell their stories of their lives, this is how the story might have went....

Enjoyable read, especially for women who grew up with the Bible stories.

181

The Dawkins Delusion

by brotherdan in

so, i recently finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins.

i read it with a certain amount of hesitation.

after all, i am still recovering from my disappointment at realizing that the wts is not god's organization.

cognizant dissident

Chalam,

I go out side and I view the world in all its beauty and its ugliness and I think it's pretty cool too.

(Beauty, ugly, and cool, are just personal subjective judgements, I acknowledge).

However, I don't see God's handiwork. I see the forces of the universe in dynamic action culminating in this moment in time that I'm experiencing.

Where those forces originated is not evident and to attribute it to God is just more subjective storytelling.

181

The Dawkins Delusion

by brotherdan in

so, i recently finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins.

i read it with a certain amount of hesitation.

after all, i am still recovering from my disappointment at realizing that the wts is not god's organization.

cognizant dissident

I don't think Dawkins is straying from the definition of faith that is in common usage. I think you are twisting the definition of faith, Brother Dan, when you say that it is based upon scientific evidence. It could be (as in your faith that the earth will rotate around the sun each day) but it doesn't have to be. The whole premise of Dawkins argument is that theists faith is not based upon any type of credible evidence that is measurable by a scientific (hence rational) methodology. Therefore, it is irrational.

His comments about atrocities committed by religious zealots is intended to prove that belief in God can be and has been a force for justifying tremendous evil and destruction in the world. He provides examples. It's not rocket science to figure out his argument that it is worth taking up the fight against ignorance when this ignorance has been at the core of so much violence in this world.

Here is the dictionary definition of the word "faith" that I pulled out of my new Oxford dictionary. It reflects, common, modern usage of the word and has no bias in this argument.

faith: complete trust, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, trust.

Please notice that it says nothing about evidence. There could be evidence but not necessarily.

You also accused Dawkins of intellectual dishonesty because he doesn't acknowledge that theists have an argument. You use the word argument as if it were interchangeable with evidence. One can have an argument and argue until the cows come home. That does not mean your argument is based upon any evidence, any credible evidence, or any scientific evidence. Again that is the entire premise of Dawkins argument, that deists argue without evidence. If you think that is intellectual dishonesty, then you don't know what intellectual dishonesty is.

Falsifying evidence is intellectual dishonesty. Taking credit for others work is intellectual dishonesty. Using logical fallacies in your arguments is intellectual dishonesty. Incidentally, attacking Dawkins character by saying he is out for fame, fortune and influence is an example of this, called "ad hominem" attack. It does absolutely nothing to attack the credibility of his arguments, but deflects attention to his character.

He may very well be egotistical, rude, out for money, power, etc. So what? That doesn't make his arguments any less factual or correct.

29

Hi! I'm a new member here

by faqs7719 in

i'm a new member here but i have read this forum from about 6 months ago.. i was born in jw, all my family is jw.. one day i decide to make a research about the prophecies because i thought that would help me strengthen my faith.

i always like the prophecies.

i have started my research with jerusalem 607. hit the google page, start to search and whats up?

cognizant dissident

Welcome faqs 7719!

Many on this site have asked the same questions about the Bible's inspiration as you. Some have come to the conclusion that it is not God's word, others still believe it is. There is no logical reason that we cannot question the Bible's authenticity in the same way we questioned the JW religion. If we decide to "throw it out", along with the religion, that's our choice.

So there, Ding!

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

Oh, good, I'm not the only one who noticed this guy has gone from socially clueless to deviant sexual predator in a mere 3 pages! Perhaps he is the one who should be running scared! ;-)

209

Sleaze Update...

by White Dove in

email exchange just a minute ago:.

him: "i just wanted to let you know that i never had any intention of causing any harm.

and i apologize for anything that seemed that way.".

cognizant dissident

White Dove:

I didn't see anywhere in his email where he asked you to have illegal public sex in the park. Did I miss that or are you totally jumping to conclusions here? Accusing people of stuff that is just speculation and then calling them unethical sleazeballs is a little crazy too!

At worst, he's guilty so far of being inconsiderate and a bit controlling and rude in his tone. Reasons enough not to date him. But seriously, lets not turn it into a federal case of harrassment!

87

First Date...

by White Dove in

a man i met at work (customer) gave me his e-mail address, so i contacted him.. we've been e-mailing for a few days now, and it's time for a first date.. i suggest starbucks.. he insists on the park.. it's 106 degrees!

i suggest starbucks, again because it's too hot to walk in the park.. he says that maybe we should cancel because the heat doesn't bother him.. he said, "i'm a very practical man...maybe you can't handle the heat.".

this is my first phoenix, az summer.

cognizant dissident

He could have been married and afraid he would run into some he knew in a local starbucks, hence the out of the way park?

Who knows, it's all speculation, but the damning part I think is that when you made known your preference he insisted on his own way and kind of indirectly put you down for your preference.

Even if he is single, totally safe and not expecting sex, those other two things show you what you could expect in a relationship: inconsiderate, passive aggressive and condescending. I'd take dangerous and married over those qualities in a man any day.

71

I didn't even know i WAS an apostate!

by GrandmaJones in

i am currently just sick with grief.

i can't believe this is happening to me.

all the jokes i've made about me never "falling out of the truth" and self confidence about my spirituality.

cognizant dissident

Grandma Jones

We are taught as JW's to take our beliefs very seriously and we must proclaim our beliefs far and wide for all to hear (whether they want to or not!)

We are taught that we cannot just sit there, we must do something! Save the world!

Challenge those beliefs like you have challenged the others. Don't just DO something. Sit there! Sit quietly, breathe deeply. You have changed some of your beliefs. The sky is not falling. The end is not nigh. You don't HAVE to tell anyone anything if you don't want to.

You just changed your mind. You might do so again tomorrow, and again next year. Humans do it all the time, every day, all over the world. No need to make a dramatic announcement to anyone. There is no drama, unless you make it a drama or tell some other JW's who make it a big drama.

Sit with all the changes in your mind, until you are calm and comfortable with them. The more comfortable you are with them, the more calm and comfortable those around you will be.

Later you can ask yourself what you would like to do with this new information you have learned. Tell someone? Why? Will it benefit them? You? Are you sure? What would be the worst case scenario in telling? The best case? Can you live with the consequences of the worst case? No? Then rethink again. When you are sure what you would like to do, if anything at all, then you can act with confidence, from your own choice, not from panic or reaction to the bullying of others.

If you are bursting to talk now, because it would benefit you, then talk to a non-JW as many others have suggested.

Hope this is helpful. Let us know what develops.

Cog

404

The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...

by AGuest in

jw
friends

dear ones.

rather, it is our adversary who says we will do anything... anything... to avoid it.

a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. even curse god to his face.

cognizant dissident

The entire Bible is a case of "bros before hos" and that's one of the major problems with it, imo.