addressing the argument, made by many christians, that with no god there can be no morality.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnu-qbgxmn0.
@bioflex
Animals lack the cognitive ability to form culture and complex rules, they don't have a "consistent morality", they lack morality period. It's never going to change because they don't have history, culture, or philosophy. If you attribute a moral sense to animals, their morality is horrific. Nature is red in tooth and claw as the saying goes. If god gave animals morality, then god is a monster.
addressing the argument, made by many christians, that with no god there can be no morality.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnu-qbgxmn0.
@ vanderhoven
This is only true if you pick the parts of biblical morality that you like. And furthermore complete 100% adherence to most ethical systems would render a fantastic world (especially if everybody is in agreement when being selective). If the entire world adhered to bhuddist morality (or an idealized version of it), the results would be incredibly beneficial, just like if everybody followed an idealized version of christian morality.
What you're implying by saying the world would be better if everyone adhered to biblical morality is that some moral systems champion STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and infedelity. But there are no shortage of ethical system that seek to minimize those things, not just the one from the bible. What you're describing is the lack of obedience to any thought out ethical system, and just playing it by ear instead. It's a false dichotomy to say that it's either biblical morality, or STDs, divorce and alcoholism, as if those are the only two possibilities.
addressing the argument, made by many christians, that with no god there can be no morality.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnu-qbgxmn0.
We are all created in the image o f God and as such, we all have an inherant knowledge or right and wrong, of what is and what ought to be.
This is plainly obviously wrong on so many levels. If we all had an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, we wouldn't disagree on it so fundementally. The vikings didn't feel guilty about raping and pillaging, radical muslims throw acid in the faces of school girls without remorse, the crusaders tortured thousands in the name of god, and they all thought that their "inherant knowledge of right and wrong" was guiding them to do so. In the civil war era, the bible was used to both condemn and justify slavery depending on the side of the debate. Today, it's used to both condemn and justify intolerance of gays depending on which side of the fence you're on. Morality is defined by the culture it belongs to, there is no "inherent" sense of it. You can't even get people to agree on whether or not it's right to kill people. At best you can get the majority of people to agree that it shoudn't be done indescriminately. That's the inherent morality of god instilled? You probably shouldn't kill people indescriminately? Powerful stuff god, thanks for that one. We definately wouldn't have figured that one out.
Trying to justify it only leaves you with some kind of tautology at best, and a lame platitude at worst. "We all have a sense of right and wrong, except the one's who don't." or "we all have a correct moral sense, but some get it wrong." or even more lamely "we have a moral sense inside of us, but we have trouble listening to it."
Objective means it's the same regardless of the observer, or one making the measurement. Morality is not objective by any standard. And simply claiming that the implications of that are terrifying does not some how make it less true. Yes, tomorrow eating babies could totally be moral. At the drop of the societal hat, raping can be justified. Hell, god's people slaughtered infants by the thousands and celebrated it, they took women from neighboring nations and forced them into "marriage". We are always on the razors edge of agreeing that something terribly harmful to people is moral, and that is scary. But the world doesn't need a philosophy that says "reality looks pretty damn scary, let's believe in something more pleasant." It needs a philosophy that recognizes our perilous circumstances and works damn hard to make our existence work. No, we don't have an objective morality that's just going to guide us to do the right thing. We have to work hard, educate ourselves, consult lessons from history, meditate on our lives, and if we are lucky we may fuck over the people of the world less than the generation before us. What isn't going to help is assuming that because we are filled with magic, our decisions will work out for the best, if only we listen to the ineffable unicorn living in our heart. That's lazy and daft.
saw this poster on a website and i had to post it here.
i think it really shows the twisted way of thinking that witnesses have cultured into them.
they turn virtues into vices, and vices into virtues.
It couldn't be me TimothyT, I'm not educated yet, lol. I'm in college now working on a Degree in Engineering, and might double major in Mathematics, but we'll see. Either way, I value education tremendously, and I see ignorance as a powerful evil in the world. Ignorance is a vice that the society has elevated to a spiritual virtue. The less you know, the more pious you can be. One is made to feel guilty to indulge in too much literary theory, political science, or real science, and they shouldn't touch philosophy with a ten foot pole. Orwell would've been proud...or rather horrified.
saw this poster on a website and i had to post it here.
i think it really shows the twisted way of thinking that witnesses have cultured into them.
they turn virtues into vices, and vices into virtues.
Saw this poster on a website and I had to post it here. I think it really shows the twisted way of thinking that witnesses have cultured into them. They turn virtues into vices, and vices into virtues. The greatest virtues of the post enlightenment era such as debate, free thought, and intellectualism are recast as horrible satanic vices. Suddenly they are "sick with debates of words", and "independent thinking", and "haughty" for questioning god's faithful and discrete slave. You could just as easily replace the faces at the bottom with the faces of the governing body members running in terror. One of the greatest crimes they have committed against their members is the insistance that anything beyond learning a trade is considered poisonous "high education." Learn carpentry, not biology. Learn plumbing, not philosophy. Take automotive repair, stay far away from comparitive religion, or any of the humanities for that matter.
Somebody should print this out and put it on the doors of kingdom halls, or at the very least on their facebook pages seen by witnesses. Sadly it would probably go over their heads. The Orwellian double think is strong with that group.
jw leadership shows an appalling lack of creativty and originality.. -- meeting attendance down across the board?
let's keep the same 1940's format anyway!.
-- missionaries quitting their assignments?
You're exactly right, sir82. Ray Franz put it as "we all became victims of victims." The people at the top now had their free will stripped, followed orders, didn't think for themselves, and did as they were told until they made it to the top....and they know absolutely nothing except for what the watchtowers they grew up reading said. And now grossly ill equipped to lead millions into a new age, they simply do what was done to them; Point to the magazine and say "do this." Russel may have been insane, Rutherford may have been a con man, and Knorr may have been a tyrant, but they were all men of intelligence and vision (however insane those visions may have been). The people left now aren't intelligent or scholarly, they are just lapdogs whos masters died.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gilmour/jehovahs-witnesses-and-ac_b_987545.html.
excerpt (bold added):.
intrigued by this gap in the scholarly conversation about contemporary uses of the bible, i recently proposed an sbl session examining the watch tower bible and tract society's use of scripture.
Don't give DJeggnog the view that he can discuss things with actual scholars. That guy's academic level is not even remotely commensurate to his view of his own "genius". In JW land he's better than average at regurgitating their platitudes, but he's still just vomitting up what has been shoved down his throat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gilmour/jehovahs-witnesses-and-ac_b_987545.html.
excerpt (bold added):.
intrigued by this gap in the scholarly conversation about contemporary uses of the bible, i recently proposed an sbl session examining the watch tower bible and tract society's use of scripture.
The academic paper linked to in the article is interesting as well. He critically examines the Revelation book, and the JW interpretation of revelation. he draws attention to the numerous violent images in the pages that seem out of place for a religion that is pacifistic, and also comments on the lack of methodology in making extremely specific interpretations of the text. Like how the seventh trumpet being blown is prophetic of an assembly in 1922 in Ohio held by Brother Rutherford, no other possible interpretation is given, that's just what that prophecy means, but exactly how that conclusion is drawn is rather vague and certainly less than methodical.
It's great watching people with an actual education comment on a group that just insists that it's educated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gilmour/jehovahs-witnesses-and-ac_b_987545.html.
excerpt (bold added):.
intrigued by this gap in the scholarly conversation about contemporary uses of the bible, i recently proposed an sbl session examining the watch tower bible and tract society's use of scripture.
That's an interesting article, and the JW apologists are already on it. They state that they used to debate, but it was unproductive. Now they just preach because jesus knows best. then there are the embarrasingly trite and obliviously offensive metaphors like "if you saw a bottle with a skull and cross bones on it would you drink it?" referring to learning about other religions. It's been a long time since I actually saw the witness mindset, and it's still sickening.
may you all have peace!.
just came across this article:.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001.
I'm not going to read through all of this, seeing as how it seems to have gone all over, but one thing needs to be pointed out (in case it hasn't). If a particle was detected moving faster than light, that doesn't prove einstein wrong. Einstein's equations and theories allow for things to move faster than light, it just doesn't allow for objects of mass to accelerate past the speed of light. Such particles have been hypothesized, and they are called tachyons, but never have they been observed. Even if the tests aren't in error (and they probably are), then that doesn't throw einstein into the fire, it just shows something we've never seen before.
