almost ready to take the plunge, but have held back for years because of topic.
husband and i have not been active for many years and no longer consider ourselves jw's.
we also have no desire to be part of an organized religion.
There are so many stories with good morals.
If you tell your child the benefits of not rushing and burning out with the story of the Tortoise and the Hare, they can understand the moral of the story without actually believing the race took place.
Same with the value of inner beauty with The Ugly Duckling - these are great moral stories, yet you don't have to make them believe in talking animals. The stories speak for themselves.
ever since leaving my former faith (jw) i've had an unquentable desire to disprove my old beliefs and prove my new ones.
do you know how tiresome, confusing and draining that is?
a couple of nights ago i started reading writings by thomas paine, wow!
Back to me trying to prove stuff like if the sequence of creation was correct, if there really was a flood, if men like job really existed and actually wrote those words, when it dawned on me: what does this actually prove to me about God, did it matter....you know what? suddenly it didn't matter, because everything in the bible was not revealed to me, Louise Maxwell, so HOW could I prove or disprove it?
The thing is, we CAN prove the real order of how the Earth developed, we CAN prove there wasn't a worldwide flood, we CAN prove the first humans were around before 6,000 years ago, and so on. There are many 'revelations' we can now prove wrong, or at least prove that God was lying about if he does indeed exist and inspired the Bible.
You seem to be clinging to the Biblical god, even though you think salvation is a one on one arrangement between humans and 'God'. How about the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists and all those who don't believe the Bible was a revelation from any god?
It sounds to me as if you're a deist already. But being a deist in a Christian society may make it difficult to explore the full range of beliefs from humanity's past. When I've looked at different religions I see the theme of humans trying to explain things they didn't understand. As science answers questions, gods die out. Perhaps, following this to its logical conclusion, none exist.
my husband asked me a questions that kind of stumped me for a moment.
he asked, in genesis, when cain killed abel, and god, as punishment cursed him and drove him from the land, making him a restless wanderer, why did cain say to god that the punishment was too hard; that anyone who found him would kill him?
who was going to kill him?
Here's a link to help with your research, heyfea-
this is my first post on this forum.
i am a forty years old women, and i have been a christian all my life.
i am thinking about joining jehovas witnesses since god has told me that you got the truth, the real truth.
I think we all have a dark side, and as long as you don't act on any of your murderous impulses, the feelings that make you uncomfortable can be controlled - perhaps with therapy, as some here are suggesting.
Please don't worry about Satan and hell - it's not real. It looks as though you were taught about the Biblical god at an age where you would have believed in anything. You could have been made to believe in a purple dragon living in a sea of ice cubes if your parents told you it was true and the society you grew up in also believed that. But there's no more reason to believe in Satan, the invisible dragon in a sea of fire. The feeling you have that it's real is just that, a feeling.
Just like the feeling you had that God wants you to join the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't expect it was an audible voice from heaven or a burning bush, more a feeling. Perhaps you wondered what path to take, and coincidentally some Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on your door.
I expect you're not afraid of duat (Egyptian hell) but just imagine what your feelings about that place would be if you'd been raised in that culture. Chances are high you would have believed. If you think that's a bad reason to believe in Egyptian religious beliefs, simply apply the same logic to your religious upbringing.
Absolutely not. I didn't agree with 'Jehovah's' rules and morality, so I thought I was going to die a horrible death along with 6 billion others.
i think that we all leave the wt in stages.
i think that when we first "see" the wt as false we do not fully understand the implications.
i think we all go though stages before it's all settled in our minds and that the stages and the "road" may be different for each one.. here are my stages:.
1. Born an atheist, as we all are.
2. Raised as a JW, believing it was real due to indoctrination.
3. Believing it, but also hating it. 'Jehovah's' morals and rules for surviving were disgusting to me.
4. Left as soon as I was able (16). I was at the stage where I would have rather died than lived forever under this god, and I had doubts as to whether this god was real in the first place.
5. After a few years of clearing my mind of religious influence, I took a look at what was going on in the world of JWs (joined this site) and then the whole 'new atheism' thing started up. The case against there even being a god is so strong I can't deny it, and that's made easier by not wanting the only god I've ever believed in to actually be real. My rational mind took care of the rest.
i recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
Thanks for the article. (I'll do my best to read it!)
The first part lays out the morality from evolution argument. Good stuff.
Some mothers have a genetic predisposition to love their children, so the story goes, and this genetic predisposition to be loving is favored by natural selection. Consequently, there are more women who are "good" mothers. What is the evidence, though, that moral virtues are genetic, a random combination of molecules? Is the fundamental difference between a Mother Teresa and a Hitler their chromosomal makeup?
As I mentioned, our morals can be influenced by others. It doesn't just come from us as individuals. The author goes to the trouble of laying out the (opposition) case for certain genes being passed on, and now calls them 'random'. If specific genes/ organisation of moleules are being passed on due to natural selection, then it's not random now, is it? They have been specifically selected for by nature.
Is the fundamental difference between a Mother Teresa and a Hitler their chromosomal makeup? If so, then how could we ever praise Mother Teresa? How could a man like Adolph Hitler be truly guilty? Wright offers no such empirical evidence.
In some instances, I'd say yes. Someone who is mentally handicapped may be that way from birth. Someone with a tendency to be violent may be that way from birth too. But it's not just about that. It's the classic 'nature or nurture' argument. I think nature AND nurture can influence us. For example, a Muslim who lives a good life may be influenced by others to kill infidels, and may justify that behaviour by thinking Allah wants him to. His 'nature' hasn't made him violent, but outside influence has. Hitler thought his race was superior. If he'd been raised in a different culture and given different values, maybe he wouldn't have wanted non-his own culture/race killed. Who can say?
It's a bit rich asking for evidence for this when none has been provided for a god. We can observe genes and molecules, they do exist. We cannot observe a god. Which is the most plausible explanation? Perhaps the things we KNOW exist.
This statement captures a major flaw in Wright’s analysis. His entire thesis is that chance evolution exhausts what it means to be moral. Morality is descriptive, a mere function of the environment selecting patterns of behavior that assist and benefit the growth and survival of the species. Yet he frequently lapses, unconsciously making reference to a morality that seems to transcend nature.
What's with this 'chance evolution'? NATURAL SELECTION. It's not chance.
Wright reflects on the moral equipment randomly given to us by nature, and then bemoans our immoral use of it with words like "tragic," "pathetic," and "misuse."
Not random . :)
"Go above and beyond the call of a smoothly functioning conscience; help those who aren’t likely to help you in return, and do so when nobody’s watching. This is one way to be a truly moral animal."[7] It’s almost as if there are two categories of morality, nature’s morality and a transcendent standard used to judge nature’s morality.
We please ourselves if we do something good when nobody's watching. WE know we've done it, and we take pleasure in that. It's still nature. If nobody knew the baby was crying at the side of the road, could we leave it there? Not without experiencing great amounts of personal guilt for it. WE'D feel the effects, even if no one else did.
Though life is an unregulated state of nature is, as 17th century English philosophy Thomas Hobbes described it, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,"[10] we’re not required to take the "survival of the fittest" as a moral guideline. Evolutionists may be right when they argue that we’re not compelled to adopt the morality of evolution.
Not all species are the same. The female praying mantis will bite the head off its mate after sex. It gives the offspring a better chance of survival. With humans, that's not needed. Morality is causing the least amount of suffering, while keeping in mind our need to survive as a species at a particular moment in history. It's not all survival of the fittest either. All humans are capable of so much, given the chance. Stephen Hawkins' physical abilities don't seem that good for the gene pool, but look at what the man has done for our species' knowledge! We all offer our own advantages to humanity. Some are just more obvious than others. A 'destroying the weak' argument won't work.
First of all, drawing conclusions about animal morality simply from external behavior reduces morality to conduct. Why should we accept that morality is exhaustively described by behavior? True morality entails non-behavioral elements, too, like intent and motive. One can’t infer actual moral obligations from the mere fact of a chimp’s conduct. One might talk descriptively about a chimp’s behavior, but no conclusion about morality follows from this.
Doesn't conduct come from the mind? The mind thinks, and then the body acts in a way the mind finds most appropriate. So if someone acts good, then the mind (controlling the body) has decided this is the right course of action.
Further, in fixing blame, we distinguish between an act done by accident and the very same act done on purpose. The behavior is the same, but the intent is different. We don’t usually blame people for accidents: The boy didn’t intend to trip the old lady. We also give attention to the issue of motive. We withhold blame even if the youngster tripped the old lady on purpose if the motive is acceptable: He tripped her to keep her from running in front of a train. Motive and intent cannot be determined simply by looking at behavior. In fact, some "good" behavior—giving to the poor, for example—might turn out to be tainted if the motive and intent are wrong: being thought well of with no concern for the recipient.
Motive is important. If someone didn't mean to do harm, then there's no harm in letting them off. It's unlikely they'll do it again. But if someone wanted to hurt another, those kind of people need to be stopped from doing it again.
Morality is something deeper than habitual patterns of physical interaction.
The brain is still a series of physical interactions. Just because it's encased behind the skull, it doesn't mean it's not physical.
The evolutionary approach is not an explanation of morality; it’s a denial of morality. It explains why we think moral truths exist when, in fact, they don’t.
Morals change, as I also noted.
We ought to be concerned about the welfare of the group. Why should that concern us? Answer: If the group doesn’t survive, then the species doesn’t survive. But why should I care about the survival of the species? Here’s the problem. All of these responses meant to explain morality ultimately depend on some prior moral notion to hold them together. It’s going to be hard to explain, on an evolutionary view of things why I should not be selfish, or steal, or rape, or even kill tomorrow without smuggling morality into the answer.
Survival of our species is the most important thing. If our very survival as a species relied on killing every ginger haired person, we would do it. We may not like to, but if it's a choice between that and watching our species die out completely, we'll choose the lesser of the two 'evils'. We care about the survival of our species because its within us to care. It's been passed on via evolution too.
Evolution may be an explanation for the existence of conduct we choose to call moral, but it gives no explanation why I should obey any moral rules in the future.
Err, to keep surviving into the future?
if we have moral obligations prior to evolution, then evolution itself can’t be their source.
Prior? Everything is constantly evolving. From the first spark of life it started.
Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well. Both are non-physical elements which can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense.
Non-physical. Really?
How can you know that people shouldn't be opressed, killed, etc.. if humanity's purpose itself is unknown?
Humanity decides what the purpose is. Humanity has decided that humans shouldn't be made to suffer. I like the mock argument you presented. You wisely avoid the implications of not agreeing to every law your god has provided, but instead of talking about that, you want me to justify my morality.
In this arrangement (which, up to this point you have stuck to beautifully), you enable yourself to condemn any moral pronouncements you wish!
I'm not sure what you mean. I cannot condemn anything I wish. Some things go against my own morality, residing in my own brain at this moment in time.
If it is believed that all moralizing is purely one’s private view then ought not that view itself be kept private? The secularist never answers how he or she determines whether anything is wrong with anything except by sheer choice. Secular belief grants itself privileges that it does not equally distribute.
Yes, humans do choose what is right and wrong. Not just individually, but as a collective. You are just as tied to that as I am. Your choice not to keep slaves or treat women as inferior (I assume at this point) doesn't come from a better understanding of the scriptures, it comes from your own brain and the influence of the society you were raised in. Other humans.
Your tone doesn't offend me at all, I never take these kinds of conversations personally. If I've missed anything, please let me know. It was quite difficult reading all of that.
slowly, but gradually more soay sheep are becoming sandy coloured because sandy coloured soay sheep are fitter evolutionary wise.. black/brown soay soay sheep will become a thing of the past..
I think what people don't realise is that evolution is tiny steps, much like this example. One tiny step after another for millions of years is going to produce an animal that looks very different to how it started out.
i recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
I'll help you with some of this, theistic hedonist.
3. In musing about this question of justice / evil, etc.. (and where do you as an atheist stand on this), I am not so much concerned with putting forward a proof for the existence of God based on our desires for justice, I am aiming at a different kind of question - namely: Are the kinds of things that we experience as people (for example, in the first post, our notions of justice, right / wrong, etc...) explicable if we are ultimately the product of an unguided / impersonal origin? If atheism is a defensible position, is it a fair conclusion to believe that people are the product of an impersonal / unguided process?
It is beneficial to us as a species to work together and help each other out. Imagine if this wasn't the case. Where would your next meal come from? Well you'd have to go out and hunt for it or try and grow it. Luckily, we all have our seperate jobs. Some farm, some drive the vehicles transporting the food, some run the gas stations and the repair places to maintain the vehicles, some make the packaging, some run the shops that provide all the food in one place, some make those buildings, etc etc etc. It's all connected. Everyone helps everyone. Our survival rate wouldn't be so high if we did have to fend for ourselves. Seeing as we're here, it looks as though natural selection has ensured species that help each other get to pass on their genes.
Can morals change? Sure. We're seeing it with the acceptance of homosexuals now, and last century we saw it with the equality of black people and women. It feels wrong inside if we discriminate against these groups, or at least it should - some are still behind the rest of us. We're influenced by ourselves and by the morals of others. Basically, it all comes from us as a species.
We know what it's like to feel suffering, and we feel empathy for others who suffer. We help others, and we hope others will help us if we ever need it. A 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' arrangement, in which the rule seems to be so inherent now we don't even think about a reward. Most of us just like to help. There's probably not a person here who, if upon finding a baby crying alone at the side of the road, would leave it there and not care. Something in our brains would make it very uncomfortable for us to leave it. A good feeling to have in terms of keeping our species around. We would have died out pretty quickly if mothers just left their babies alone to look after themselves.
Occasionally, some people do cause suffering to others. They don't seem to care. That's when we have to make them care, if not about what they're doing, then about a possible punishment if they get caught doing something society disagrees with. It would do our species no good to have a mad man going around killing people. Whatever the punishment involves, it has to involve making the person stop.
If Gopher tells me to shut up, I will, but I can help with these others-
the belief that what has ultimately produced us is time + (impersonal matter) + chance?
One out. Change chance to natural selection.
It seems to me that atheism involves a denial of God's existence that is due (in the view of the atheist) to the lack of proof to the contrary. Is this second definition your view? It seem that this view differentiates between agnosticism and atheism.
Agnosticism is 'without knowledge'. Nobody knows if there is a god, so we're all agnostic, technically. The choice is whether to believe or not. Saying you don't believe isn't a denial. There are many things I don't believe in. I don't believe in the abonimable snowman, but I don't say it definitely doesn't exist. If there was evidence for it, I'd believe. But with no reason to, it's not something I'm on the fence about.
Even with the atheist - agnostic - theist approach, with as much reason to believe in a god as there is to believe in the abonimable snowman, I say I don't believe, rather than I don't know. But even saying I don't believe isn't a denial.
Do you think we get our morals from the Bible?
....and that kids should come first.
ok, who knows what michael jackson really believes about children, but generally speaking "worldly" people (sorry for the jw speak, but you know what i mean) indeed believe that "children are the future" and that "kids come first".
often, "worldly" parents act accordingly, and their children thrive because of the life choices (often real sacrifices) the parents make.
I'm sure there's some 'care' for the children, in the sense that they'd better join in and believe as the parents do, otherwise God's gonna kill them when Armageddon comes. In some minds I expect that passes for 'care'.
There's no Sunday School with them, which (if i believed in a god and wanted some religion) I think would be a good thing to have. Instead, the kids sit through talks on oral sex, pornography and birds pecking out unbelievers' eyes.
JW children are made to sit and sparkle in front of others as medals for the parents to show off. Less concern for the kids, more concern about how their behaviour makes the parents look more 'spiritual'.
There's no choice for the JW child. Do as the parent says, join in with the religion, or suffer the parents' punishment as well as the threat of God's punishment.
That's why, in any religion, I am sick of people comparing the children to the adults. Let the child decide for themselves, don't be their mould.
