NewChapter

Joined

• started 105 topics
• posted 11,806 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by NewChapter

• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  And yet, here, we mostly see one type being dominant

  I don't think it is dominant. I think it is louder, but not dominant. Most people that I know in real life aren't church affilated, (unless they are fundamentalists) but have a more private kind of spirituality. When I share some of the discussions that go on here, they look at me askance. I see it as kind of a phenomena, and so do they. They don't think it's a good idea to accept such stories as these on the internet. Yet it seems common or dominant because we hear about it a lot.

  That's why I would like to hear from them more often. To show that there are many ways to believe. This line may not be drawn between atheists and non-atheists, but perhaps it's all over the board. Some may have more specific and critical criteria for evidene than others. I think it would be good for them to speak up to show those that are exiting that there are more than a couple of ways to believe, if they do not want to let go of belief.

  I can only share the atheist option. I'm an atheist. But I wish that when people pop on, maybe confused, maybe searching, maybe vulnerable, they see something other than atheism and visions. I don't think that is the impression they get, but I think the shades are important.
• 
  546

  non believers what if your wrong ?

  by unstopableravens in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i do not wish to debate anything here like i have said in the past i have much respect for most on this forum (believers and non believers) i am simply wondering if the atheist or non god believers every worry about what if your wrong?

  it seems that many who were jw for so many years attach jehovah/yahweh with the watchtower and since the wt is wrong than god does not exist.

  i ask this question only because i care about people and salvation thats why i want to help as many as possable come out of this cult,and since i truly believe in god i dont know what is in the cinscience of those who dont.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Unstop, what if you are wrong? What if you are wrong and the Muslims are right? Or the Hindus? Or the Ancient Sumerians, Egyptions, Taoists, Native Americans? What if you have chosen the wrong god? There are thousands to choose from. What makes you think that your particular god, and your particular belief about that god, after hundreds of thousands of years is the one?

  You are an atheist when it comes to all gods but one. Do you worry about being wrong?
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  I think that a lot of our discussions boil down to non-atheists that believe in visions, voices, and personal revelation, and self-style beliefs of one. There are some fundamentalists about.

  I'd like to see other shades chime in. I'd like to hear from a person who has faith, but doesn't buy into other people's personal revelations as shared on the internet. I'd like to hear from those that may follow a religion and be part of a church. I know there is a very negative bias against those that do belong to a religion, but I would like to see what they have to offer this discussion.

  I'd like to hear from non-Christians, and how they view spirituality.

  I think the conversation has been greatly but in a box, since it ends up being an argument about reason and personal revelation---something that really can't be discussed, cuz the person said they heard or saw something, and it came from a god, and that's that. But I KNOW that not all people of faith simply accept that without question. After asking the questions, I'm pretty sure they come away not accepting them at all.

  It does not have to be a non-atheist vs atheist discussion at all times. It could be discussion that discusses the personal revelations, and often we will find that many non-atheists take a similar postion as the atheists. When we discuss fundamentalism, we will see a different mixture of people supporting and not. If Paganism is laid out there (although, most pagans I know really don't get into the debates) we will see the dynamics change again.

  Some new voices, some new ideas, something that can actually be discussed beyond, "I just know, cuz it was revealed to me" would be so very refreshing. Surely on a board like this, we have many shades, but we only seem to be hearing from a few, and that takes over all.
• 
  85

  Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

  by JimmyPage in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

  nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

  (i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  You seem to be saying to me (and by inference to those other writers and scientist) to lay off poor Dawkins because he has done so much

  Not at all. Criticize him all you want. I'm saying it doesn't really matter. Disproving anything that Dawkins might say does nothing to disprove evolution or other scientific advancements. He put forth an idea. It is an interesting idea, and makes for provacative conversation, but it is being put through the crucible. Very good. All is at it should be. Deciding to criticize his ideas is not bold or shocking or even enlightening. You can jump on his idea of memetics, and you could make some valid points, but that won't lead me to say "HEY, maybe Evolution doesn't really happen!"

  So I don't know where you are going with it. Is your goal simply to discredit Dawkins, or is it to make a larger point? Take on the larger point.
• 
  69

  Atheists and Theists... what do you want from us?

  by tec in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is a spin from palm's thread on a truce.

  but i think, instead of getting people to sugget ways that a truce could work... how about we list answers to this:.

  atheists: what do you want from theists?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Well I think that is sometimes a sore spot that some of us don't seem to distinguish between types of non-atheists. I'm just hilighting that we actually do make a distinction. Something lies between atheism, and accepting stories of cherubs washing feet and staring adoringly into eyes. For those that fall between, that really do need evidence, who withhold belief until they feel they have sound reason to believe and have a critical judgement of what counts as evidence, and who are not easily led but always looking for their way, then there is a spot.

  I do distinguish between non-atheists.
• 
  69

  Atheists and Theists... what do you want from us?

  by tec in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is a spin from palm's thread on a truce.

  but i think, instead of getting people to sugget ways that a truce could work... how about we list answers to this:.

  atheists: what do you want from theists?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Atheists don't care about my "believer" leanings.

  I feel more accepted and safer and supported as I search, with the atheists.

  In fact, we respect it. My forum has come up a number of times, and its super-secret nature. It is private, and so what may not be understood by those that are not members, is that I have a tiny spiritual corner! It is for those that are not atheists, but want to approach spirituality critically, and honestly. They feel better supported by secular people in this quest, where things are stated clearly and without metaphor, and are more comfortable posing questions, knowing that they will simply be answered with no effort to twist such answers to fit into a worldview. Just the facts ma'am.

  My desire was to make a place for like-minded people approached these things critically, could ask the questions that needed answers and could be answered, and to decide what to do with the questions that could not be answered. The forum is biased, that's for sure, but we actually do have quite a bit of respect who approach this part of their life intelligently. Of course, the rules don't allow for voices, visions, or personal revelation, because such is not useful on the internet. The type of non-atheists that benefit by this structure do not easily fall for anonymous claims. But they are certainly free to discuss it the way that works for them.

  Signed,

  a hateful, angry, disrespectul atheist that owns a secular board.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  "megalomania" and "cult"

  What if those words are the appropriate descriptors? Do you object to calling WT a cult? Do you object to calling Hitler a megalomaniac?

  What if, that is truly the opinion of the poster? What if they believe saying so serves as a warning? Just wondering. I've seen some pretty disturbing things lately, but hold back (mostly) on expressing it.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Why do you have to wait to be personally affected until you act?

  No. I don't think that protests and demonstrations will be effective. That may be something I could do for myself, but not something I expect to have an impact on those who murder for a nonexistent god. That's the core of the issue. So instead, I promote critical thinking. This may or may not lead to a person discarding belief in a god, but some measure of it is always very helpful, and may prevent a non-atheist from falling into fundamentalism, or unquestioningly following ANYTHING, but always have, at least some, critical thinking skills.

  So in that way, we are acting every day as we challenge, and cause people to look at their belief systems with different eyes. That is the only place that we can truly protect ourselves from the actions of fanatical believers---by being a resistant force and always challenging. Without pull back from this end, a non-critical, non-questioning person could easily be pulled all the way in the other direction. We see what happens when there is no resistance. We have the Islamic world to show us, presently, and the Dark Ages to show us previously. Resistance is necessary and valuable.

  If you are pushed to explain yourself to me, and I criticize your explanation, it is harder to go off the deep end.
• 
  85

  Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

  by JimmyPage in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.

  nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.

  (i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Then it is not a hypothesis, it is an idea. Perhaps that idea will lead to a testable hypothesis as scientists mull it over. Should that happen, then it can be submitted to the scientific method, and we will have more answers. If it does not stand up to testing, it will be trashed.

  I guess what I don't understand is the point of jumping on Dawkin's ideas (who has contributed and awful lot) and think there is any major point in it. Especially when simply looking at proposed ideas. Should he not propose and idea? Should we not consider it? I think he SHOULD, because it is the exchange of ideas that leads to better questions and hypothesis.

  A critical thinker will look at it and understand what it is, and prioritize it as such. A fool will look at it and take it as gospel.

  Nothing is gospel. Intriguing ideas are formulated and discarded all the time. Discarding does not mean that progress has not been made--because doing so eliminates a possibility, and we can move on to the next.

  You just have this huge issue with Dawkins, like he has disciples or something. It's not religious. Our world will not fall to pieces if an idea of Dawkins is proven wrong. It's just the process, and it is interesting to us.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewChapter

  Well I think the suicide bomber is the product of a monstrous teaching. They have suppressed their own compassion and humanity, and allowed their disgusting belief about a brutal, murderous god to absorb them and turn them into the very monster they believe in. I think that without this horrible belief, and with some critical thinking skills, they could have avoided becoming a monster, but they chose unquestioning faith over reason.

  I don't particularly care about that person's humanity, but see it as a symptom of something much more troublesome and relevant. The bomber is the symptom, the cause is total submission to a horrible teaching.

  I think I'm pretty free to express that about a suicide bomber, and may meet with some left-field resistance, but not a lot. However is I were to make this statement about other beliefs, I think that would be considered an attack.