Posts by digderidoo

30

Has anyone ever turn down being appointed an Elder or MS?

by Davros in

jw
friends

has anyone turned it down or know of someone who did turn down being an elder or ms?.

yes, it should be one of the biggest privileges a brother can get !!

(how do i put the barfy icon in?

digderidoo

My father started to privately doubt God's existence when he was offered an MS position. He accepted it.

51

Without god what is the basis of morality?

by OneEyedJoe in

i'm sure most here who've questioned or left behind their belief in god have encountered this question - without god, what basis can there be for morality?

my exwife, when i admitted that i was an atheist, once asked me "if you don't believe in god, what's to stop you from going out and raping and murdering?

" previously, whenever i got this objection, i would tend to turn it around on the other person with a response along the lines of "if fear of god is the only thing that stops you from murdering, that makes me rather nervous to be around you.

digderidoo

This is an ancient dilemma.

Socrates asked Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Socrates was asking if morality must come from the gods to be good, or is it good anyway and therefore loved by the gods.

Many theists argue that morality is separate from God, that God only loves morality because it is good - Thomas Aquinas for instance, holds that humans through reason (from God) can seek out what is moral to what is immoral. It is 'reason' that is a gift of God, not that morality itself stems from God.

Morality only stems from God in a theistic argument if they believe in a Divine Command Theory of morals, ie what is moral is only moral because it comes from God - this is, however, a minority opinion among theists - and incidentally, not necessarily the view of JW's. Not least, because this means there is no measure on morality, other than God's will. Many others argue that God commands what is moral, because it is moral - ie God and morality are separate.

Romans 2:14,15 even tells us that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, that it is through their conscience that they do what is right.

If God and morality are indeed separate, then we can be moral without any belief in God or god.

28

Window Cleaners?

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

like a lot of others here, i gave higher education a miss when i left school (1980).

under the encouragement of the society i pioneered for three years instead!.

now i clean windows for a living.

digderidoo

I started window cleaning in 1986 to pioneer - ended up doing it on and off for many years after my exit from the JW's. In my late 30's I started a law degree, graduated, then did a Masters, now doing a PhD. I have done some teaching at college the last few years, I gave up cleaning windows about 4 years ago. Last year at the age of 46 I stepped up another stage to become a university lecturer.

Education is worth it, at any age.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

digderidoo

Atheism = self defeating.
First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, alpha the negative and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.

Good use of logic. However, as you are aware from your philosophy 101 class, a logical argument has be based upon true premises. Your premise (that atheism means 'negative god' which should be applied today) is false for the following three reasons. (After taking your philosophy 101 class you should be aware that if any one of the following three statements is true then your premise is false, meaning that your conclusion of atheism being self defeating is also false.)

1) The word atheism (atheos) in Greek means 'without god(s)' or 'without deities', not negative god as you presume. Early Christians in Greece were called atheists by the populous for their lack of belief in many gods. So you see the early literal meaning of the word is neither 'negative god', nor 'affirms the negative in the absolute'.

2) Basing a modern linguistic meaning on the 500 BC Greek use of a word is preposterous, as atheism has its roots in 600 BC India.

3) To get to where we are today we have had to pass through classical antiquity and the enlightenment. The meaning of words change in time, all of your language has - you would not base the meaning of all of your words used today on what they meant 2,500 years ago, that would be absurd.

On this point, your philosophy 101 class may have taught you something about Socrates. Please read Plato's dialogue of Cratylus (your philosophy 101 teacher may or may not be aware of it, ask him/her).

Socrates is brought in to help with an answer to an argument between Heraclitus and Cratylus. The former argued that names of words are posited by custom and convention, whereas Cratylus (like you) argues that names of words have some sort of natural meaning attached to them. After listening to both arguments Socrates describes the creation of words as being like an artist who expresses the essence of his subject in the painting. Over time the meaning of the names of words change, like the creation of the picture from the first use of the artists brush. He states, "names have been so twisted in all manner of ways, that I should not be surprised if the old language when compared with that now in use would appear to us to be a barbarous tongue."

Finally, Socrates concludes that the study of language to gauge a useful meaning is philosophically inferior to the study of the things themselves.

Take Socrates advice - to gauge a philosophical understanding of a topic study its things, not its words.

I rather suspect that the use of literal Greek for gauging some sort of modern day meaning is influenced by your JW days. Get out of the box and move on, there is big wide world out there.

233

Number of Muslims protesting London terrorist attack = ZERO. Number of Muslims protesting forced Mosque closure in France = HUNDREDS

by kpop in

so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.

how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?

how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.

digderidoo

Interesting thread, I was in London last Wednesday, though not near Parliament.

I got in to a lengthy discussion here a couple of years ago after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, trying to understand the nature of the attacks being due to young Algerian Muslims being oppressed in France. The last couple of years I have begun to change my views. I can see how those in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan are oppressed by the West and see no issue in them wanting to defend themselves from invading US and allies troops, but that is not the issue here.

There is a basic problem with a fringe on the left (of which I was one), in that it begins to excuse any act of terrorism if committed by a Muslim as being a response to historic Muslim oppression. Whereas, an act of terrorism committed by the right wing, (Anders Breivak in Norway, Timothy McVeighthe Oklahoma bombing, Dylan Roof - CHarleston church shooting) are rightly condemned and never excused.

Why is it that when a Muslim commits terrorism, this fringe left (regressive left, call it what you will), condemns it only in the context of a response to oppression, whereas when a white commits terrorism it is rightly condemned outright? This left fringe actually adds the problem, by excusing terror when committed by brown skinned people.

Anyone who then looks to the Muslim faith to see what is going on and begins to condemn aspects of that Muslim faith that they see as a problem is then shut down as a racist, as I once was guilty of. The left should rightfully condemn the Quran which supports such an ideology.

There is a problem in the Muslim faith that should be rightly addressed. Individuals use verses of the Quran as a reason to commit these atrocities, yet when a so-called 'moderate muslim' is just asked to condemn those verses of the Quran 99% of them refuse to do so. Many of them will condemn the atrocity itself, but not those verses of the Quran that has been used to justify the atrocity.

Trevor Phillips who once headed the Race Relations Board in the UK has done an interesting study and asks whether political correctness has gone mad. He conducted a survey among Muslims in the UK, here are some of the findings -

2,650,000 Muslims live in the UK

47% do not want their children to be taught by a gay teacher

66% would not inform the police if someone they knew was involved with supporters of terrorism in Syria

1/6 want to live separately from the rest of the population

4% sympathise with suicide bombers (that's 111,000 muslims in the UK)

52% believe homosexuality should be illegal

23% support the introduction of Sharia Law

32% refuse to condemn violence against those who mock the Prophet

39% agree wives should obey their husbands

5% sympathise with stoning women for adultery (132,000 in the UK)

If Muslims refuse to address this problem, which crosses over with the so-called 'moderate muslims', there will be no integration and if the left continue to excuse the problem as a reaction of being oppressed or discriminated against it will continue.

Ex-Muslims, when speaking out against their former religion are shut down as being bigots, racists, etc. Maryam Namazie has had to struggle just to get a platform at University debates, often ridiculed as a bigot, all because she has a point of view that the Muslim faith should address these concerns.

The kind of findings that Trevor Phillips report suggests belong within an ideology that is fascist. I have changed my view over the last year or so. There are always those who are bigoted or racist and condemn Muslims from that platform, but that should not stop a criticism of the Muslim faith and the Quran itself, which essentially belongs within a fascist ideology.

261

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character...

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.

", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.

he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.

digderidoo

Hi Sylvia

I haven't been here for a long while - how's things going with you?

261

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character...

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.

", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.

he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.

digderidoo

Just looking through some old posts, found this an interesting read. I have added some more scriptures here, along with a statement by Jesus in support of the OT

Gen 3:16 ... " To the woman he said: 'I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.' " Why would God do this to womankind?

Lev 20:13 ... " And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. " Homosexuality is not a choice, some people are this way, yet God wants them dead?

Deut 25:11-12 ... " In case men struggle together with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the hand of the one striking him, and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of him by his privates, you must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow. " So, a husband mutilates his wife for protecting him?

Luke 14:26 ... " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple. " Sorry Jesus, but i love my family.

Hosea 13:16 ... " Samaria will be held guilty, for she is actually rebellious against her God. By the sword they will fall. Their own children will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women themselves will be ripped up. " God kills children and pregnant women.

1 Sam 15:3 ... " Now go, and you must strike down Amalek and devote him to destruction, with all that he has, and you must not have compassion upon him, and you must put him to death, man as well as woman, child as well as suckling, bull as well as sheep, camel as well as ass. " God again kills women and children, oh and farm animals.

Ex 4:24 ... " Now it came about on the road at the lodging place that Jehovah got to meet him and kept looking for a way to put him to death. " This is a real clincher for me, God was looking for a way to kill Moses! If he aint safe who is?

... and the list goes on Deut 13:6-11, Deut 22:28,29, Deut 2:30-35, Deut 7:1,2, Deut 7:16, Josh 6:21, 1 Sam 6:19, Jer 13:14

The argument that this took place in the Old Testament is a very weak line to take. In the New Testament Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not think that i came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. " Matt 5:17, 18

21

Would it be ethical for another nation to supply weapons to anti-Trump protesters?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

the usa, claiming that the usa supports freedom, has often supported revolutionaries/dissenters in other countries.. some examples:.

currently, the syrian war commenced circa 2011 in the so-called arab spring.

it is claimed that the usa supplied weapons to anti-government forces.

digderidoo

Trump was elected democratically. No comparison. If you don't like it, make sure you get as many people to vote for your candidate next time around.
Revolution???? because you didn't get your candidate? sigh.

Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Communist President of Chile, was overthrown in 1970 in a coup supported and funded by the CIA - putting General Pinochet's evil regime in to power.

There is a direct comparison.

184

Why are people burning their city to the ground in Baltimore? How doe Looting and Mob Violence Help?

by PokerPlayerPhil in

it's hard enough for businesses to enter these areas the government once had to offer up tax breaks to service them.

in watts, california it took decades for city residents to get a grocery store after the thugs burned their businesses to the ground.

you can see the insanity taking place, when you allow mobs and fools to burn building down nothing good comes from it.

digderidoo

Murder also means an intention to cause grevious bodily harm, where the result is death. Though i agree it appears unlikely it is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

There could be a disconnect between events for joint enterprise, but ultimately that's question of fact to lay before the jury, as equally there could also be a connection.

False arrest can result in assault charges ... in the example of drugs coming back negative, i would assume there is an initial probable cause, ie a bag of white powder should be enough. In the arrest of Freddie Gray it seems to be implied there was no probable cause, leaving the police officers open to a charge of assault. Resisting an illegal arrest is lawful as far as English law is concerned, the defendant would not be charged ... as for US law on resisting arrest i'm not 100%.

184

Why are people burning their city to the ground in Baltimore? How doe Looting and Mob Violence Help?

by PokerPlayerPhil in

it's hard enough for businesses to enter these areas the government once had to offer up tax breaks to service them.

in watts, california it took decades for city residents to get a grocery store after the thugs burned their businesses to the ground.

you can see the insanity taking place, when you allow mobs and fools to burn building down nothing good comes from it.

digderidoo

Interesting discussion, i haven't read the whole thread just the debate around the charges.

My personal opinion is that either Murder or Manslaughter will be proven based upon what we know. There seems to be confusion that maliciousness is needed to prove murder ( i think it was Simon who said, though I maybe wrong). The mental element the law adopts for murder is 'malice aforethought' ... it's an antiquated legal term and doesn't equate to maliciousness. It basically means intention and that intention is based upon a foresight of consequences. That intention can also be based upon an intention to do grievous bodily harm (or the US equivalent, forgive me i'm English). If the resulting consequence is death from grievous bodily harm it is still murder, even though there wasn't an intention to kill.

The other avenue prosecutors can go down is involuntary manslaughter. As has been mentioned this an be through negligence, but it can also be proven through an assault that leads to death ... ie, i punch you on the nose, not realising that you have fragile bones and die from my punch. I did not intend to cause you death, or grievous bodily harm, i only intended to assault you. Involuntary manslaughter is death caused through another criminal act (ie my assault).

Another aspect of this case is joint enterprise or a common purpose. So for instance i'm with a gang of other guys. We all join in beating someone up. One person kicks the victim in the head, causing death. In the eyes of the law joint enterprise is used to find all guilty of murder or manslaughter. It does not matter who struck the fatal blow, the fact that we were all part of the initial beating means that we could all be guilty of the unlawful killing by association. Its a very contentious point of law, as it was initially intended to stop a group of individuals denying they struck the fatal blow and hence declaring themselves innocent. It is in need of reform, however it is still on the books in many countries, including the US.

So how do we apply this to the case at hand?

For murder the prosecution would have to prove the officers either intended to kill or intended to cause grievous bodily harm by their so called 'rough riding' and as a result Freddie Gray died. For the purposes of intention, proving that the officers had a virtually certain foresight of death or grievous bodily harm could be enough to prove the mental element (malice aforethought), also known as intention. Proving either of these would mean murder.

For involuntary manslaughter the prosecutors would have to prove that the officers assaulted Freddie Gray which eventually resulted in his death. Personally i think this has a better chance based upon what we know. As the arrest appears to be wrongful arrest, the officers would more than likely be up for an assault charge. This is enough for involuntary manslaughter, as the result was death. The death could be viewed as a continuous act from the initial assault (wrongful arrest), straight through the rough riding ... either the initial assault or the rough riding proven could be enough for an assault charge. If prosecutors proved this lesser offence, then as the final result was death involuntary manslaughter would in my opinion likely stick.

Under the concept of joint enterprise, it does not matter which officer struck the fatal blow. If they are all involved in the assault and death was the eventual result, then all officers could be charged in the same way as the one who was doing the driving of the so called 'rough ride'.

It will be an interesting case to follow and one that i will certainly follow.