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.
non believers what if your wrong?
I've been wrong about a lot of things . . . shit I can't even score 100% on multi-choice questions.
But if God showed up I'd feel obliged to point out that I'm not that impressed with a lot of his work . . . and that he should have got in touch with me a lot sooner.
favourite poem anyone?.
here's some of mine.
had i the heavens' embroidered cloths,.
I picked up some anthologies, and favorite poets, from the Library discards, and have them on hand. If I'm feeling like enjoying a poem, I just grab one of the books, and see what comes up. :)) . . . talesin
Nice idea tal
The truth is I'm probably a bit lazy . . . I read most of mine on-line LOL.
But a couple of Libraries have books to give away after the quakes . . . I should go for a browse. Sitting down with a book is a nicer way to enjoy it.
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.".
We have more to agree on than disagree sab . . .
Even the rationalists will admit that the method is falsely used to come to predisposed conclusions. The believers concede that doing this is effectively fraudulent science. . . . sab
Shysters appear in all disciplines and walks of life. It can be argued that this is not "science" but fraud. Same goes for a lot of religions as well. It is really the responsibility of the individual. "Piltdown man" doesn't invalidate science anymore than "the Shroud of Turin" invalidates Christianity.
If you rely on fraudulent science, you have the same problem as with relying on fraudulent religious doctrine. The difference with science is that the fraudulent is often revealed by the scientific method itself, in a self-correcting manner. That is often why theory (which is most often conclusive science) gains status as fact over time. If it didn't do that then the fraudulent would remain undetected.
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?.
Mrs J and cofty . . . fine posts with valid points to be considered.
For the rest of you . . . a real contact sport . . . and the best team in the world at it . . .
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.".
I fear you are just taking the technicality instead of seeing the principles I am trying to bring to the forefront. . . . sab
I felt the same thing . . . but the other way round. False belief is not something anybody feels grateful for when it is revealed . . . regardless of how big or damaging the organisation is. Seldom do we even recognise the price until pay-up time (as in WT). I have no problem with personal belief, and I'm sure the holder feels it is on solid ground. But when it is displayed through a public medium it is simply being recommended by preaching. Scrutiny under those circumstances is right and proper.
The issue is not believer/non-believer . . . but behaviour. The same rules for debate apply regardless of the subject . . . and scrutiny is the dominant feature of it. Attack the message not the messenger. Not complicated.
See . . . you and I have had an exchange of ideas. I'm not cold. I feel emotion just as you do. But the exchange can still take place . . . and hopefully, through being respectful, we each have the opportunity to disagree and present our point of view . . . even for the purpose of vigorous scrutiny. Hopefully we both get to learn something new. Little would be achieved otherwise. We're simply not all playing in the same orchestra.
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.".
You are simply conflating two separate ideas. One of a multibillion dollar corporation with a long history of mind control and the other an internet poster with an opinion. . . . sab
I disagree. Same idea, different context. All ideas can be persuasive and influence others . . . and any idea with merit will stand up well to scrutiny.
My first encounter with JW's was one person at my door with an opinion.
If I had scrutinised more carefully . . . I wouldn't even be here. Isn't that a nice thought.
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.".
Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption. . . . me
Such cold use of legal language. . . . sab
I'm not a cold person and have zero legal training. But that is your perception and that's fine.
Tell me . . . do you think the JW doctrine should be probed and the flaws exposed for those newly exposed to it? JW doctrine is fashioned and dispensed for public consumption . . . and much of this site is for just that purpose . . . exposing it's flaws.
You can't have it both ways sab.
People leaving the WT cult deserve to hear and evaluate all sides of an issue . . . for their effective healing. Otherwise it's just round and round. Folks will make their own mind up . . . but an unfettered, untested religious proposal deserves the scrutiny that they failed to apply first time round.
I hope you can see that.
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.".
For instance a poster might claim: "You have been shown that Lock Ness Monster is a myth!" Then the other person might say, "I believe in the Lock Ness Monster depsite what this poster has showed me." This is where the first poster really should drop the issue. . . sab
When you say you believe something in spite of what has been shown you . . . then that can be seen two ways.
1) The quality or quantity of evidential argument of your critic is lacking . . . and therefore more is required.
2) That there are elements that the critic has not grasped or understood . . . and so further questioning is needed.
So I disagree . . . if a claimant wishes to end the discussion and retain the status quo . . . then it is the claimant that should drop the issue. Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption.
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.".
Snide? That's a strong word, I'd use sarcastic. . . . sab
Semantics sab. The fact you missed, is that I didn't take it as either, in spite of your admission that it was intended to be sarcastic. Instead I focussed on your point.
Do you get my point?
favourite poem anyone?.
here's some of mine.
had i the heavens' embroidered cloths,.
The thing I love about poetry . . . is that it often expresses something so profound, that it really can't be expressed as well any other way.
An old man could grumble about his lot in life all the day long . . . and probably end up pretty lonely. But his poetry has reached an audience of millions . . . few of whom who could keep a dry eye. The sentiment lives, even though the old man has moved on. It's got it's own soul . . . like it has a life of it's own. A good poem can live forever. I wish I had the time to read more of it.
