the current heated "(monotheist) believers vs. atheists" threads tends to overlook, imo, this rather commonplace but relevant issue: how modern atheism continues (and thus is tributary to) a line of religious, philosophical and scientific thought which runs from ancient polytheism through monotheism, both in greek and jewish traditions (which are the two main sources of western culture).. in the greek-speaking world, homeric-like polytheism went out of fashion, and although political authorities stood for the conservation of popular worship of the gods (atheism being a capital offence, ask socrates), an intellectual monotheism came to the fore, especially in platonic tradition, along with more or less "underground" forms of early atheism (democritus, epicurus).. in judea, for mainly political reasons ("one god, one temple, one priesthood, one king") the "deuteronomistic reform" of the 7th century bc promoted the active rejection (1) of all other gods than yhwh, and (2) of any representation of yhwh himself, henceforth branded as "idolatry".
it also (3) reinterpreted most "natural" features in older israelite religion (linking yhwh, just as baal, with the cycle of seasons, especially the rain and dry seasons, vegetal and animal fertility) into historical (or pseudo-historical) celebrations: the feast of spring became the celebration of the national foundation in the exodus from egypt, etc.
(4) the development of a doctrine of creation, increasingly construed as creatio ex nihilo -- mere "fabrication" of the world out of nothing instead of the older theomachy (struggle between the gods) wrestling for order out of chaos contributed to emptying "nature" of its numinous, sacred or divine presences: the sun, the moon, the stars, vegetables, animals and humans became mere "objects," vessels designed and made by a master craftsman, but devoid of intrinsic divinity.
I would agree it is a logical progression. But a BIG step, indeed. Obviously, with 90% of the world still clinging to a basic belief in some god, be it theistic or deistic, there seems to be a disconnect getting from monotheistic, (or deistic), belief to atheism.
j
ok, so you deny the existence of a god, or you lack belief in a god.
my question why do you get so angry over a mythical being?
no one gets as upset over the tooth fairy, santa claus or the easter bunny, as i have seen some of the atheists on this board get over the slightest mention of god.
I truly believe that what many ex-jws, (and members of any totalitatian religion), have a problem with, is tolerance, myself included, sometimes. The average never-been-a-jw, dosen't get that worked up about someone's, religious, (or lack thereof), belief system. It usually is far easier for them to have a balanced view, as well. That said, there is nothing inherintly wrong with either belief or disbelief in god, within itself, and taking a stand for such. We do, however, need to take a chill pill sometimes here. It only becomes a life and death matter, if we make it such.
Now I am going to flame....
Another thing I have noticed is that the Atheist XJW's are'nt nearly as friendly as the christian JW's, and they seem to lash out more at everyone, no matter what the subject involves, be it politics or religion. Atheists hate Bush, they hate the Bible, they hate traditional american life, they hate just about everything except other atheists.
Junction Guy, your ignorance is a testimony that speaks for itself.
While I no longer claim to be atheist, (I really do prefer agnostic), your comments against atheists are uncalled for, as well as simply untrue. You should really consider studying American history if you think "traditional" American life was religious in nature. Despite what you might believe, our nation's founding fathers were secular in nature, as was the basis for our entire constitution, and believed in a clear separation of church and state. That is what most politically active atheists, (and other secularists) ask for, a separation of church and state. It's that simple. You spend way too much time listening to Sean Hannity.
Jason
as a fader i felt delighted at clinking glasses at a pub.
it may seem trivial but it meant a lot to me.
what is the best thing you have done since leaving the truth?.
Learned to stop caring about what other people think!
j
so i remember my grandmother having these old vinyl recordings with the dude ranting away.
do you think it would be worth me trying to getting hold of them, or are they already available in the public domain.
i wish i was a hardcore anti jw when i was younger 'cos i would listen to those beauties now, at the time i thought they were just boring.
<!-- .style1 { font-family: arial; font-size: 18px; color: #0000cc; } .style2 { font-family: arial; font-size: 16px; color: #0000cc; } .style3 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } --> how much influence did the watchtower have in destroying your faith in god?personally, i do not believe that a corrupt organization should destroy the belief .
or concept of a designer, god or creator.
in addition, because an organization .
I would agree with many of the above posters who cite access to information as the primary reason for my disbelief.
That said, one of things that came out of jwism, is the mindset, that religion and spirituality, if it is healthy, MUST be absolutely true. Of course, this is false, to debateable, at best. But nevertheless, we as ex-jws are suspect to this mindset. Where as most people, can just simply accept their belief, (from whatever religious background they have), as sufficient, even if flawed, the ex-jw tends to have a much more difficult time with accepting this type of thought. Religion was always taught to be absolute truth.
Because of this, we search for truth. Eventually, we discover, by hook or by crook, that absolute truth does not rest in religion, of any kind. I consider myself agnostic, borderlineing on atheist. In other words, if I MUST choose where I stand, I don't find any holy book definition of god, adequate. A deist's understanding of god, is so different from any holy book definition, however possible, that one could basically consider this definition of god irrelevant in real world terms. Hence, by that measure, I'm an atheist.
j
have you ever seen a witness get absolutely giddy over placing a measly tract with a neighbor and get up on the platform and tell the "experience" of how the neighbor actually said that he'd read it!
big deal!!!.
in our hall, they loved to applaud over the dumbest things!
Facial hair- on men that is. Even I agree that facial hair on women is troubling.
Yeah, ironically they seemed to allow it on some sisters....
j
i for one, would blindly trust just about anyone on this forum, just the fact of knowing that you already were a jw.. does this mean that jw's in general are better people or are we a very close bunch of people?.
What was that word you called JWs.
Oh yes, I think it was liar.
Precisely.
j
Oh, and yes, if that biblical charcter Jesus witheld information, he was dishonest, too. Notice I didn't say he was WRONG. Just DISHONEST.
i for one, would blindly trust just about anyone on this forum, just the fact of knowing that you already were a jw.. does this mean that jw's in general are better people or are we a very close bunch of people?.
Witness don't have the proper understanding of "honesty".
Honesty is a good thing, but not always possible, or practical.
Witholding the truth IS dishonest.
Witnesses think it is OK to withhold the truth.
Witnesses ARE dishonest.
j
we will find out soon.
as a brief update my wife sweet pea and i have 'announced' to a few friends and close family - less than 10 altogether - that we are no longer going to meetings.
some friends have probed for details, others don't want to know.
It really depends on your congo. The elders in my last hall really had too many issues to deal with inside, to even bother with someone who said they wished to be left alone. I know of several in that hall who did just that, (myself included). None had to d/a or were d/f'd. OTOH, I had elders looking for me, from a previous hall that I belonged to, when they heard of my apostate ways....Like I said, it depends...
j
i remember last year, a lot of blame against the republican congress for doing nothing to stop big oil companies from raising prices.
democrats are in office now, and no one seems to be saying anything.
why are the democrats not being the night and shinning armor about gas prices?.
Y'know you are allowed to drive more efficient cars!
... that is what the rest of the world does anyway.
Even though, sense a bit of "stupid Americans", sentiment here, I can't disagree with Simon. The American public has largely done this to themselves, (or at least allowed the commercial auto giants, ((and not just Detroit, btw)), to do this to us. We really don't need cars that are getting <20 MPG. We just think we do. I'm no better at this than anyone else, although my next vehicle will almost certainly be a hybrid.
I don't neccesarily buy the "death of suburbia" argument, either though. Our energy problems ARE solveable. We need to get heads out of asses though, stop wasting time with "alternative sources", (at least as a total solution), and start looking into REAL, working, practical energy sources: i.e. nuclear. We made a fatal mistake in 1979 by ending our nuclear plant buildout. The rest of the world, (a good example is France), has accomplished quite a bit along these lines. We are still stuck in "China Syndrome" mode. We cannot afford to be.
Nuclear energy will make the electric cars, (not hybrids),finally practical. One of the major reasons for the conecptual abandonment of electric cars has to do with the fact, that most of our current energy sources in use now, (coal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and 20% nuclear), cannot meet the consumption needs of electric vehicles. A nuclear based infrastructure could easily meet the demand of electric vehicles, with almost infinate room for growth.
j
