Call it defending reality from people with crazy beliefs who do crazy things with those beliefs. What's crazy is that this is happening in the 21st century, but there we are.
serotonin_wraith
JoinedPosts by serotonin_wraith
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
-
23
Was the WTS correct?
by chappy inbased on current events, do you think the wts could be at least partially correct on their prediction about organized religion being banned by many governments or even some future un mandate?
what about the western governments (us, britain, france, germany etc)?
think it could or even may happen?
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Trying to ban it will only backfire I think. People need to move away from it naturally. As we learn more about the universe, the gaps for a god are getting smaller and more people are realizing this.
-
28
The psychological effects of faking dubism
by LtCmd.Lore inwell, i've known the truth about the witnesses for over two years.
and i've been pretending to be one ever since.
i'm sure most of us did that for a period of time, some longer than others.. i think it has changed my personality, especially since i've been a teenager the whole time.. .
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Lore,
I can see why you have to fake it at the moment, but how do things go when you have to try converting others? If you're working in pairs, and you have to fake a good presentation, don't you worry about those you talk to getting drawn in?
Maybe you've never had to worry about it because no one has shown any interest, but if any have, or taken the mags out of politeness, do you ever go back on your own to warn them?
-
33
I've reached a turning point in my life
by B_Deserter inlast may, i finally admitted to myself that i am an atheist.
to me, being an atheist means that i don't believe any of the silly nonsense that puny humans have come up with.
many of the religions of man were started during a time when mental illnesses went undiagnosed and misunderstood, a time when man couldn't explain why lightning struck the earth or why rain fell.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Yes, but then you have an unending chain of universes that had to be there to begin with. You're just pushing the cause further back in the past. My point is that I cannot accept that all this energy in the universe has simply always been here.
I think we differ in that you seem to be demanding a first cause, and I see the past as eternal. There may be no first cause, just like I don't think there'll be a final event. So if the future goes on forever, why not the past?
The problem in saying there was some other kind of power, or god, or whatever to start the universes off, is that that now has to be the eternal component. There's no evidence for that thing, but we see the universe everywhere. We already know it exists.
-
33
I've reached a turning point in my life
by B_Deserter inlast may, i finally admitted to myself that i am an atheist.
to me, being an atheist means that i don't believe any of the silly nonsense that puny humans have come up with.
many of the religions of man were started during a time when mental illnesses went undiagnosed and misunderstood, a time when man couldn't explain why lightning struck the earth or why rain fell.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
To sum it all up, I believe that the universe was created by something eternal.
Why couldn't the universe be eternal? Not this particular one we're in now, but everything outside of it (if there is anything outside of it).
Cause and effect still applies - an earlier version of the universe causes the next version and so on, right up to us.
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Atheism is not an overall lack of belief. That's childish and wrong. It is simply the lack of belief in God.
Agreed. It's a lack of belief, but not a lack of belief in everything. Only theistic beliefs, hence atheist.
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not believing in something is not a belief. If I said I believed there was definitely no god, that could be seen as a belief system, but I don't say that. Is not believing in witchcraft a belief system? Is not believing in aliens a belief system? Is not believing in Zeus a belief system? No, it's just something people hardly think about. The only reason atheists have to be given a label is because there are so many theists.
Any indoctrination is bad, but did you have to go through it because the Cuban government didn't believe in witchcraft, aliens or Zeus? No. They just happened to not believe in witchcraft, aliens or Zeus. They just happened to be atheists too.
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
Prevents independent thought.
No it does not.
Not ALL independent thought. But people believe whatever worldview is given to them by the pope, their pastor or some old men in Brooklyn, to name a few. They are certainly not thinking for themselves.
Children are indoctrinated regardless of whether their environment is religious or not. My family fled Atheist Cuba, I could tell you a couple of things about their attempted atheist indoctrination in the state religion.
Sure, please tell me about it. Were you told 'There is NO god, don't even think there is one! Stop believing in God!'? You cannot have atheist indoctrination in the state religion. It's not to do with atheism. It's like saying you had fairy denier indoctrination in the state religion.
There is a difference between indoctrination and standard teaching. http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/indoctrination.htm
-------
Quote:In the philosophy of education, the concept of indoctrination refers to unethical influencing in a teaching situation. Indoctrination means infiltrating (drilling, inculcating etc.) concepts, attitudes, beliefs and theories into a student’s mind by passing her free and critical deliberation. When - on a general level - we define indoctrination in this way, it is easy to say that the indoctrinative teaching is morally wrong and that teachers or educational institutions should not practise it.
Quote:
...teaching is indoctrination if the outcome is an "indoctrinated person".
Quote:
The ground of the beliefs of such a person are believed to be untenable, or beyond rational reasoning. An indoctrinated person holds her conviction despite of the counter evidence.
-------
When teaching facts, there is no counter evidence. It is not irrational to believe in these things and pass them on to the next generation. It is how our species acquires knowledge.
Fear of death.
No. Fear of eternal torture after death, or an unnatural death any day now at the hands of an invisible tyrant.
Fear of life without an invisible friend.
Sounds like an atheist problem to me.
Not really. Most atheists I know rely on other humans or doing things for themselves instead of wishing they had an invisible friend. Someone who believes there is one and that life is better with one may find it hard to accept there isn't one. They may fear that.
People may pray instead of getting or giving real help.
The one does not preclude the other. Classic "false dilemma" logical fallacy.
I'm pretty sure people pray when things are going bad. Talking to oneself isn't going to get anything done.
Keeps people ignorant of the facts of life.
Which are?
Facts that go against the Bible, such as studies that show prayer doesn't work, evidence for evolution, evidence that stars came before the Earth, not the other way round as Genesis would have us believe, evidence of human fossils older than 6,000 years (when Adam was supposed to have been made), proof that the human body can't have been designed- or was poorly designed (back pain, blind spot in the eye, men with nipples, wisdom teeth, defects, etc), proof that there are gay animals, so it can't be anything to do with our fall, proof that there was never a worldwide flood, and much more.
Instead, they may end up believing
this isn't the only life they get, that god hates gays, that stem cell research goes against god, that the gospel should be spread far and wide, that an invisible man in the sky listens to them and cares for them, that their children shouldn't marry people of another faith, that hell is a real place, that there were only 8 people alive 4,000 years ago, that there are 72 virgins waiting for anyone who kills people of another religion, that lies (such as creationism) should be taught to others, that babies should have their foreskins removed, that the word of a woman is worth half that of a man, that there is a big invisible dragon on the Earth, that they need to talk to themselves every night before bed, etc etc etc.
On the contrary, at least if we are talking about Christianity here, an adherence to its precepts creates an interest in the well being of others. Check out all of the Christian charities.
Not a COMPLETE lack of concern. I cannot see how anyone who believes in God would be worried about our species dying out.
Holds back science.
No it does not.
Not ALL science.
The teaching of evolution.
Stem cell research.
Plus anything else that goes against the Bible.
Killing 'witches' (which continues to this day in some places)
Chalk this up to ignorance and a human tendency to demonize that which is different.
No, I think I'll chalk that up to Leviticus 20:27- " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
and Exodus 22:18-
"Do not allow a sorceress to live.Actually, you're right! It's ignorance and a human tendency to demonize that which is different.
Suicide bombing.
Yes, all religions teach this of course!
You missed the line before the list.
' It depends on the religion, so these won't all apply to one:'
Ditto to the next two.
Wars.
Lets talk about the millions killed by avowed atheist states in the last 100 years. Wars persist, despite religion.
First, it was not done in the name of atheism.
Secondly, this is like saying: "Oh, I know there is a murderer wandering the streets who occasionally kills people, but most of the time he does good works and gives to charity. Besides, even if we locked him up, another murderer would take his place."
It is possible that other things will be used to justify killing, and they should be addressed too. Religion, proven to kill (not just in wars) should not be ignored, just like we wouldn't ignore a murderer wandering the streets.Catholics in Africa teaching monogamous heterosexual married sex-the one thing that can stop AIDS.
Please research how AIDS spreads. Straight people are now more likely to catch it than homosexuals. The teaching you think would work isn't followed because it's human nature to want sex. It's a distinct possibility the priests who abuse children do so because they've been made to hold in their natural urges. The one thing that can stop the spread of AIDS with great effectiveness is condoms.
Opposing euthanasia.
No argument there.
Then we disagree on what is moral. Prolonging pain for no good reason isn't moral to me.
Discrimination of homosexuals.
This is a social problem. If your argument is correct, this would not exist in atheist societies.
Homosexuals are treated better in more atheistic societies. In Saudi Arabia they can be killed. In the UK a couple of years ago a new law was passed which allowed homosexuals equal rights. In the most religious states of America, it is illegal to engage in homosexual acts.
Ditto to the next two.
Guilt is the natural response of a well formed conscience.
It is. A conscience not well formed would be one influenced by religion.
Atheists may give up their dreams in bitter hopelessness and futilty. I've seen plenty of bitter angry hopeless atheists in my time.
Hopelessness and futility about what? Bitterness and anger about what? Athiesm isn't a belief system.
In short, to listen to you would make one think that a fully atheistic and areligious society would not have any of these problems. I submit to you that all of the above would be WORSE.
Well then you missed this-
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3
"According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies-countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom-are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious."
Will you be replying to what was in the first post?
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
I feel I have provided reasons to back up what I believe, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
I'm in agreement that people can leave the WT in any way they wish. My way ended up being exploring the rest of Christianity and seeing that it was as false as the JW teachings, and wanting others to see that, in the same way you would like people to see the JWs are keeping people trapped in their false worldview. I don't think that makes you dogmatic, so we will have to agree to disagree on what that term means.
I wish I could have heard the answers to the yes or no questions, but alas, it was not to be. But I thank you for taking the time to talk to me.
Peace!
-
76
Staying a Christian Upon Leaving (cont.)
by serotonin_wraith inwritetoknow, you can paste in those articles again if you like.
could you just put in the first two for now (the one with the sunset on the right side, and the one about the author's atheist friend?
no one is making anyone read this.
-
-
serotonin_wraith
We are in a discussion here. I can't read your mind, so you are going to have to explain further. I read your standard paragraph, and I provided some refutations to some of your conclusions. To honor your conclusion, you must address those.
I'm not deliberately avoiding what you're saying. My answer to where we get our morals is the brain and human nature. That's it. That's my answer. I thought I had addressed your concerns with my conclusions. I feel like I'm repeating much of this now, but we should clear it up.
You provide examples of kind animals, I provide examples of cruelty. It's a wash. In order for your theory to hold water, you have to prove that all survival behavior is "good" and worthy of imitating.
The cruelty we see in animals is from a human perspective. Some animals can cheat, steal, murder without justification, etc. But this is done by a minority, and other animals in the group will punish it in some way for not following the 'rules'.
Amongst humans it is the minority who do cruel things too. So far, there is a match. Most follow a code, a few do not.
Other things we may see as cruel if humans did them, are not cruel according to the animals' code. For example, if a woman murdered her husband straight after sex and ate his body, that would be wrong. But when a praying mantis does it, it is to ensure the survival of their species.
We do not imitate every animal, there is no set of rules applicable to them all. We are so different to most of them that this would be impossible. But we understand when they do something we'd never consider, it is to help their species survive, which ties into my version of morality.
I'll add a link to a documentary showing how humans and animals act in a fair manner with each other because it benefits them, and for those who break the rules there are consequences. You don't have to watch it, but it may make it easier to understand what I'm saying.
Richard Dawkins: Nice Guys Finish First
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=PornoSatan&p=r
I am disputing your claim that your internal constructs of 'good' are independent of your Judeo-Christian upbringing.
We already had a moral code written down before the Judeo-Christian religion got started. It was obviously independent of Judeo-Christian teachings, seeing as Judeo-Christian teachings didn't exist at that time!
We could consider countries that have naturally moved away from religion too (which would include the Judeo-Christian religion).
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3
"According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies-countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom-are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious."
I also dispute that all people agree on what is 'good'.
I'll agree with you on this. People in Muslim countries may feel it is 'good' to kill homosexuals or apostates. People who stop reading 'moral' laws like this in holy books find they can't agree that this kind of thing is good. Human nature/the brain tells them otherwise. The Christians and Muslims who find those rules wrong are choosing not to follow all the rules of their 'morally superior' book. They are relying on their own morals instead.
IF THERE IS a universal "knowing" of what is good, I think it would bolster my belief in a good God. A universalism of thought, that transcends the hard lessons of evolution.
I should have been clearer, it's my mistake. What is good is what causes the least suffering and keeps in mind our survival at the moment in time we think about it. Changes in our environment can change what we see as good or not. What is good today may not be in 1000 years- but we still 'know' what is good for us right here, right now.
But none of those statements did he say were the "highest" did he? He left it for one verse alone.
And if we check Leviticus 26:14-46 we can see many, many verses about the punishments from God for disobeying these laws you decide to disobey.
It would be reasonable to conclude that anything said AFTER the 'highest' rule would be more up to date information from Jesus too. If he corrects himself with the highest rule, why wouldn't you see him correcting himself with things said after that verse?
Even if this one verse is to be regarded as the one to follow, Jesus' commandment to love God would mean his commands should be followed, like a loving worshipper would, wouldn't it? Loving thy neighbour as thyself would be protecting them from harm, like those who worship other gods or people who dabble in the occult. How can it just mean protecting them from liars and robbers and murderers? Aren't these other things dangerous too? Wouldn't an acceptance of homosexuality lead to more and more people risking their eternal souls?
You may not want homosexuals to be punished because that would be unloving, but then would you say the same thing about robbers? Wouldn't punishing them be just as unloving?
What can I say? Because of where I am in history and place, I am a Christian. I cannot help the background. The New Testament was written and available.
I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of straightforward yes or no questions then, just to make this completely clear to myself.
If you only had the Old Testament available, would you be stoning people who broke Biblical rules? Yes or no?
If Jesus hadn't said one rule was 'highest' would you expect people to be following the old laws, and punishing them if they did not? Yes or no?
Some other great piece of literature or event would have shaped our society towards good.
So are you saying the Bible was not needed for us to progress towards a more moral outlook?
There are social scientists and scholars working on these very questions (nature or nurture).
I see it as both. Children in the same family can grow up in the same circumstances but end up completely different. They are also influenced by those around them to an extent. The moral zeitgeist can change, and humanity as a whole progresses. It always seems to be moving towards my version of morality though- doing what causes the least suffering and keeping in mind our survival at this point in history.
....and why couldn't it be God directing it all? I understand if you've don't buy it.
It could have been some kind of deist god. It could have been aliens transmitting morality into our brains from invisible spaceships. But there's no reason to believe in any of that. I have proof of the Book of the Dead, so I have good reason to think that exists. I don't think morality comes from that, because people had to write it, and they were writing what was in their thoughts already.