snare&racket

Joined

• started 227 topics
• posted 3,997 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by snare&racket

• 
  77

  How would you define RELIGION, and why?

  by Fernando in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

  this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

  this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  The blinders leading the blinded
• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.

  my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.

  the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Is that your top reason kate? I mentioned 'top' on purpose so that it didn't become a list of 'well that isn't my only reason....etc.' Top reason indicates that it is the rason you give most weight to.

  I say this because the formation of stereoisomers has several biotic and abiotic explinations and I am unsure why you would give that as a top reason. A quick search on the net can easily show the papers on this topic, I remember going over it in my Alevel chemistry. The problem isn't finding a theory on how it happens but proving it as it happened billions of years ago in an unconfirmed, unknown enviroment. Symmetry is everywhere in nature due to the pressures on evolving entities usually being static in an enviroment. The stereoisomer question comes down to working out how a symmetrical molecule broke in half leaving a L and mirrored R sided molecule. I understand we don't have the means to pinpoint exactly how the symetrical molecules split, but I would never pin the existence of a deity to that yet unknown answer....

  Still if that is your answer, that's cool. Look forward to your reply x

  p.s. I don't intend this to be a 'tell us your reaons' then 'atheists attack!' thread...

  I just have a little knowledge on the chemistry Kate was mentioning.
• 
  42

  Lawrence Krauss

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

  hence his science is biased.

  being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Kate, these scientists are coming out the wood work with their views on god and religion because they are literally banning science textbooks in american schools, they are going to court and having creation myths or ID forced into science classes!

  Scientists have become vocal because they feel their BASE OF KNOWLEDGE is under attack. They speak up because of their concerns for science and knowledge divulged from science.

  Had you read Dawkins and Krauss as you have mentioned them, you would already know this. Dawkins was a professor at oxford, his position given was 'communication of science' and he came up against anti-science religious movements in his role hence he started discussing it more and more vocally. Dawkins is an animal behaviourist expert by training with considerable experience in evolution and general biology. God does not show up in his experiements for his day job!

  Krauss is a cosmologist. He studies gasses and stars and atoms and energy and matter.....not god. The phrase I used about Krauss not talking about god at all, ever in his day job in a quote from him and his book. Cosmologists are not paid to do god or religion, they do science, they do experiments.

  My point was, how on earth could a bias enter into his sicnetific experimental discovaries, when there is no science or evidence of any supernatural kind and non for a god. I am in no doubt of this at all because I know how the scientific method is used, so I ask all this because I don't understand how you think his views can alter his cosmology science results?

  I have spent 7 years neck deep in the sciences and god and religion has not come up once in the scientific realm. It has had no relevance as we deal with data and the scientific method.

  You speak of your years doing chemistry, think about how odd it would be for the judeo-christian deity to be introduced in a chemistry lab experiemng in any way. It is an odd claim, it doesn't even make sense as a concept.....it just is not what science does.

  Come on Kaye, it's early in the morning, but not that early! :P x
• 
  22

  The Botchtower's attitude towards using the Internet

  by Composer2005 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  has the botchtower discouraged or spoken against members using the internet?.

  .

  satan / devils environment & all that j.w bs!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  From memory, I remember they used some verses in Job back in 1997/98 in a Thirsday night meeting. The verses talk of Satan using a 'net' to catch people. They attempted to connect the dots and I remember thinking they were going so far as almost saying it was somewhat of a prediction, at least an amazing coincidence that it be called the 'net' and a world wide 'web' where followers could become entangled and trapped by satan

  It was actually another important point in my deconversion now I think of it, as I have never forgot that article and the ridiculously ignorant, fear-mongering tone it had. We had elders council our family as we had internet quite early. Of course it is laughable now as most JW's do. The farce of the doctrines and teachings and such dogma is so clear when seeing such huge sways in ignorant opinion from the governing body.

  The whole thing stank of fear of the unknown, fear of technology, the whole 'I remember when this was all fields and life was wonderful...' routine from an ageing leadership.

  I remember someone being at our house, a sister. She was scared as I showed her the WATCHTOWER.ORG site and she kept nervously repeating 'how do you know it is their website' and 'what if it isn't' and 'why would they have a website.' It was written in the front of the magazines by that point in tiny print, but she was scared to death of it. She was 25 yrs old btw lol
• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.

  my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.

  the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Hey quelly x good ta

  Really busy working as an emergency physician at the moment in the ER (A+E). It is my first job rotation so I am clocking some serious hours to gain as much experience as possible before starting here as the new doctor (end of July). Super busy but super happy too.

  Thanks for answering, interested in what others say.....
• 
  144

  Escaping Indoctrination - Faith Isn't a Virtue.

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the unknown writer of the gospel of john put the following words in jesus' mouth, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".

  persuading countless generations that it is a virtue to believe incredible things on insufficient evidence, is one of religion's cleverest tricks.. the more incredible the claim; the more flimsy the evidence; the stronger the belief; the greater the virtue.. this is the exact opposite of how we operate in every other aspect of our lives.. rational people must demand objective evidence for everything they are asked to believe.

  "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".. leaving the dogmatic claims of the watchtower is only a first step.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  We have to make three assumptions to make any sense of our world today...

  • We exist.
  • Observations and predictions are the best way of discovering knowledge of our reality.
  • If our discoveries are beneficial and advance us, they are likely true.

  These paraphrased three basic philosophical ASSUMPTIONS are the basis of science. Some may want to spend their life disputing them as they are only assumptions. The reality is... anyone claiming to know more than anyone else, is being untruthful. Anyone claiming more than an assumption in these areas is simply lying as there is no means yet of providing evidence beyond assumption.

  Christians tend to say they KNOW the foundations of their existence as they have learned them from the ancient jewish scrolls, collated together by the catholics to form the modern bible. They pretend that there is zero dispute in their argument, but of course, they are not offering evidence in simply claiming they have the answers to our relaity, they are simply requesting that we have faith as they do.

  I can't speak for others, but faith led me far from truth for 25 years. It took a lot of hard work and time to align my self, my mind and my learning abilities to seeking truth having used faith for so long. For me I can only accept evidence as truth now, known truth. Any claims beyond what we have evidence for are nothing more than that to me now, claims. Such claims are then to be scrutinised for bias and origin so I can prioritise them from interesting to insignificant.

  It is funny how much I have changed since leaving WT. I was raised being told how to think as a hive mind, someone else at the helm. I was told how to perceive science and evidence, how to question and how to reason. But all these methods were biased towards Watchtower's perception of truth. It was so far from reality that it became ridiculous fiction.... science was exchanged for talking donkeys and superman strength born from long hair, 900yr old humans and heavenly wars with dragons and unatural beasts. God'd that commanded slavery, infanticide and murder. Laws that put faith over family. Fear mongering that has 7 million people seeing a very different world to the rest of us. Faith was very dangerous in my experience.

  Now I use evidence and critical appraisal to decide what is true for myself and it is the most freeing aspect of being a JW no more. There is not a human out there who can reason truth with more ability than you can yourself and you know your motives and biases and integrity, you can only assume another human beings.

  Look at the evidence and decide truth for yourself. There is not ONE good reason to not do this !!!!!

  Faith in religions led by people dictating truth is an unecessary relenquishing of power. These religious leaders are human too, whatever data they have you have, whatever skills they have to intepret the data, you likewise do too. So use it!

  Faith is for the lazy gamblers...
• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.

  my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.

  the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top ONE REASON for your belief or non belief?

  My foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:

  The historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.

  Snare x

  p.s. I am truly interested in what everyones foremost one reason is and please don't write a page of reasons, for or against, we have heard them all on both sides so many times now. I am just interested in what individuals value highly when making the desicion of belief or non.
• 
  21

  Unbalanced way of thinking?

  by msconcerned in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  so, one hot beautiful (not a cloud in the sky) kind of summer day, there was an elder who decided to re shingle his house.

  this was on the book study day.

  he started early and got all the shingles off of the roof in time for the book study that night.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Cognitive dissonance....

  In his mind had the rain not come, Jehovah rewarded him for being faithful in small, the rain did come just as it is written, unforssen circumstances etc. His putting his god first was tested to the full by satans world, and it cost him dearly, but he is storing up treasures in heaven.

  My point is, when someone is adopting cognitive dissonance, they can easily fabricate an answer that suits their belief system. He may be smart, but he is using very different reasoning when conidering his beliefs, protecting them with his mind from all reasonable questioning and legitimate doubt.

  He should have stayed home that day and deep down inside I bet he ponders why and how that could have happened when he was doing the 'right thing'...Especially every assembly when someone talks about how a cheque of the exact right amount arrived on tax rebate day or how a box of vegetables was dropt off when the bread and milk ran out when pioneering....... derp.....
• 
  9

  New Orleans Convention website - June 13-15

  by sir82 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  looks like there is a "hospitality committee" that has been desgnated to "sell" the convention city for each place an international convention is being held.. other posts on this site have displayed the websites for detroit & atlanta, this one is for new orleans.. .

  http://jw2014neworleans.org/.

  this one even has a brochure!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  Baltar, i felt the same way...

  As if the god of the universe would operate like this with such tacky. corporate like websites and brochures. It is just so cheap and gawky and as far from the sense of 'spiritual' as you can be.

  It looks like some cheap over 60's tour of new orleans that will end up being far more expensive than it is worth evident by the half arsed attempt to make it look exciting and organised..... Three days of yawning is about to cost a lot of people a lot of ca$h.
• 
  42

  Lawrence Krauss

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

  hence his science is biased.

  being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  The dude discovered the red shift acceleration..... he is a physics legend...

  So a smart guy is against god and religion therefore his science is no good? It doesn't make sense.

  There is no evidence for your god kate, so how on earth can it's non existing data inturrupt modern science? Scientists DO NOT talk about god in their day job, he doesn't come up, there is no reason for him to as there is absoloutely no shred of evidence that he even exists in any of the scientific fields.

  You being a claimed scientist who despite this knowledge of no evidence STILL believes in god, may want to consider where the confirmation biases lie and the cognitive dissonance begins.

  Krauss? ......as everyone says, please do show your workings out for this conclusion?

  Isn't his beliefs infact simply reflecting the science and data? Quite the opposite to the claim in the OP when you think about what he believes and why and what you believe and why....

  snare x

  P.s. Kate have you read any of his books yet? Which ones if so?