Posts by David

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

If you hired me to build you a house after I assured you I was the best house builder around, and after investing much of your hard-earned money and a lot of your time, the house I built fell in upon itself, would you hire me to build you another house? Even if it wasn't your house I did a shoddy job on, would any of you hire me to build your home with my track record of such a horrible mistake, even if it was only one horribly-built fiasco I was responsible for? I would be surprised if you did.

Try as one can, there is still no definitive scientific theory of "love" or "loyalty." What you folks are pointing out is not proving "love," but other things associated with what we call "love." If there is such a scientifically proven thing as "love," then what is its agreed upon scientific definition? Who defined the "theory of love" or discovered the "theoretic model of loyalty"? No one. You won't find a Newton or Einstein responsible for these discoveries. These aren't scientific notions, not in themselves.

I do not mean to insult anyone here who have different views than mine. You are no less a person because you are atheist or agnostic or theist. Forgive me where my words seem disrespectful. But at times we struggle to have or find answers when there are none. This is partially due to a characteristic some of us may have in common.

Some of us want very much to be right or have the true view of life and the world around us. Having been in the Watchtower form of religion that abused us with such a facade of truth, it is no wonder we strive for accuracy and realistic logic-based understandings instead of silly notions.

Yet for some of us (obviously not all) we have not moved past the view that we need to be right and that we need to have the truth once again. We had this view as Witnesses, and maybe for some, like me, it has been a character trait not easily dismissed or even recognizable in ourselves. Our desire to be in the "right" religion and have "the truth" is not one universal in the world of religion, though the JWs often left us with the impression that it is. It isn't as widely shared as some of us may have been taught.

Upon leaving the Watchtower we who have this trait may not have let it go. Again we think our current view, be it a new religion, atheism, or agnosticism is the "right" one, and we debate with others who do not share our "truth," even acting as hateful and disrespectful of others with views that conflict with ours similar in fashion to the Witnesses regarding other religions. We might close ourselves off to reasoning others may offer for their convictions, insult them for having these views different from ours, and then use our views as a panacea to supply us with "all the answers we need" in this world.

But it may be that we are just as scared to be without thinking we are "right" or have "the truth," since having "answers" gives us a feeling of control. No convictions, philosophies, or even science can give us all the answers. Just like there is not a religious answer to everything, there is not a scientific answer to everything either. We can't keep trading one "panacea" for another, as there is likely no one "right" way or "truth." That is just another lie of the Watchtower. We can't have the answers to everything. We can't find something that will make us "right" with the correct answers about everything, science included.

And, if we are ex-JWs, we are the last people who should be thinking or declaring we have the right answers, debating with others to prove them wrong and defend our new-found convictions as right. Like the house builder who made a horrible house, our track record with finding the "truth" and thinking we have all the answers is not very good. We should learn that we are not suddenly experts at knowing the right way to go in life just becuase we left one path that was clearly wrong. It doesn't work that way.

Science doesn't always have the answer. You can't always be sure you are right at this point in your life just because you're not a JW anymore and have found atheism or a new relgion or whatever. There may be no definitive right way. But that is no reason to be frightened nor an excuse to think we can't be wrong again where we now stand. We need to be humble because, in all truth, no one in their right mind is going to "hire us to build them a house" with our track record.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

Cofty,

Did my wife love me? What's the evidence? What is the scientific theory of love called? What is the model? What is to prove that biological readings and actions of people equal "love"? And what is "love," just a biological or psychological or physical response? Is it less or more? Science has a theory of evolution and gravity, but one for love or one that proves loyalty?

Neither exist. I work in my sheriff's CSI department in forensics. There are no such things scientifically. Prove your statements, your beliefs about love and loyalty. But I tell you now: There is no scientific evidence for them.

And claiming that you don't put faith in something that doesn't exist is nothing, childish. If God is not real, what big thing is it to not believe in that which is not real? Takes no courage either. That's my opinion.

What I think would be interesting is if there was a God and undeniable evidence thereof, and then find a person who doesn't believe in that God. That would be courageous, bold. But to believe that something doesn't exist that doesn't exist is easy. And I think both sides who think it's so import to convince the other they are right is a waste of good life.

This is just a forum. Just giving my opinion. What does it matter to you if I count atheists and theists as fools? I also know there is always the possibility that I can be wrong and that I may need to change my current view. But I don't think many atheists or theists are just as willing to admit the same. Who is the greater fool, the one who argues they cannot be wrong or the one who doesn't argue such a ridiculous thing?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

I wrote the post. The context is clearly about scientific evidence because I begun by speaking about string theory:

A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.

Despite there being scientific evidence for either or not doesn't mean I don't believe in them or require scientific evidence of them to believe in them. People don't always accept things on the basis of evidence.

And you can't produce any kind of evidence or argument to prove either of those things anyway because my beloved died 7 years ago and my dog died last year.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

And Cofty, if you can scientifically prove that my wife loves me and my dog likes me, I would "love" to see that.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

Sum up it up in a sentence: I think the issue that atheist and theists argue about is stupid and arguing either side of the issue is a waste of time.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

For me the case is neither atheism or theism (or something in between). To me this is too elementary of a way of looking at things.

A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.

On the other hand I don't buy into the "faith is built on evidence" argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and some theists. "Faith" is supposed to be the opposite of evidence. I can put faith in a friend that they will do something though they have not done it before. The event of what I put faith or trust in has not occurred. Faith in this instance is something that one can take pride in because of it not being based on evidence. Otherwise being out on a limb means nothing.

I think it is a waste of time to argue over something that doesn't exist. I don't argue with others about Bloopadoopawoopa-Kupnta (I just made that up), because such a thing doesn't exist. So what if you believe in it? It's not real.

On the other hand, if there is a God, how is my mentally accepting his existence relevant or important? Even Scripture says that demons also believe in God, but for them it means nothing but a reason to expect adverse judgment. (James 2:19) Mere belief in God doesn't help demons, and allegedly they've seen him! They obviously know God. If the actual knowledge of God cannot save demons, what good is my mere faith in someone I have not witnessed like they have?

If I'm going to be on the fence about the issue, why? It has not been established that other universes can't exist. It has not been established that higher forms of life don't exist. You can't disprove something that has yet to be discovered, and "kinda" thinking something might be out there that can't be understood is, to me, like saying you might exist but you are beyond my understanding. Just because I don't know you're out there doesn't mean you aren't real, and if I met you I am sure I could get to understand you.

People like to argue about "God is real" and "God is not real." I don't care. I don't think convictions or adopting a creed or taking pride that you don't believe in something that you also don't believe is not there (which, if you think about it doesn't make sense to have any pride in) is worth my piddle. That's all childish to me.

It takes no courage or intelligence to reject that which doesn't exist.

Mere faith in a deity doesn't mean you are faithful to the same.

Not taking issue with an issue is like not getting treatment for your cancer because you aren't sure if it will work or not.

I personally have moved on from the whole thing.

30

Control - Whose worse, the JWs or the traditional churches?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.

john spong gives his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.

David_Jay

To add to the information about "colporteurs"...

The whole "colporteur" thing was NOT an invention of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were an invention of the British Bible Society.

When the famed trek of the poor Welch girl, Mary Jones, inspired the first Bible society in the world, those who were hired to sell the British Society's Bibles were called "colporteurs" from a French word, "colportage" which simple means to peddle books. To this day those who sell and distribute Bibles for Bible Societies are called "colporteurs."

The Bible students tried to create their own Bible society in competition with the original and ecumenical ones (which still exist by the way among the United Bible Societies). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was their invention, and they copied everything the bigger non-sectarian societies did, including calling their own salespersons "colporteurs."

The JWs changed the name to "pioneer" when they wanted to "prove" they were not "engaged in a commercial work." The "filling out of monthly reports" are indeed holdovers from the salesman/colporteur days.

30

Control - Whose worse, the JWs or the traditional churches?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.

john spong gives his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.

David_Jay

Putting aside personal views of religion (and asking for patience and understanding from those who might find our own personal negative critiques about religion in our posts unreasonable), I have found that for myself and several other ex-JWs that it takes years of being out of the Watchtower before you get an honest glimpse of what outside religions really are like.

Far from perfect, even greatly flawed, they are nothing like the devilish descriptions forced into our psyches when we used to sit hour after hour mindlessly accepting the vomit served at Kingdom Halls. Religion in general and Christendom in particular, despite all their failures, has been the subject of false representation as much as everything else outside the crusty old Watchtower.

Some are just as judgmental, somewhat controlling, maybe even equally stupid (Mormonism comes to mind when I say that), but with the type of unfairness and uncaring that stinks up the Watchtower...no, that's hard to beat.

Despite what many of us think about the whole "God" concept, most people find the relgion of their choice appealing. For the most part, many of them are "liberating" to those who join them, Many of them are at the forefront of fights for justice in the world, such as the MCC religion and Reformed Judaism. Even the "evil harlot" Catholic Church is undergoing growth, sweeping changes, and is becoming more identified with mercy and freedom under the pontificate of Francis. Calls for freedom of conscience are sounding throughout Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other relgious movements like never before.

Is it all genuine? That remains to be seen. But is any of it matching the lying descriptions of religion still in regurgitation from the Jehovah's Witnesses. No. Like everything else, they lied about religion too. Lying about reality is a form of manipulative control as well.

Again I personally have to leave the churches and religions of the world to their actions and your own interpretations of them. But one thing they aren't doing is trying to control people by lying to them about Jehovah's Witnesses and, usually, the world in general. If there was an annual award for unjust manipulative control among religious groups, I think people would be bored over the fact that the same religion has kept winning year after after year especially since 1914.

3

Religious Freedom, what does it mean?

by James Mixon in

can a religion violate that principle of religious freedom with it's own members?.

religious freedom which says that no one is to use force on another human being in matters of.

of conscience, in matters religious.

David_Jay

As far as I know, only the Roman Catholic Church has made the issue of "conscience" actual doctrine in their theology. This does not mean that other religions have not included it or touched on it in their theology (or that I have likely missed study of a religious group that has done so), but Catholicism has raised points dogmatically demanded upon members as part of their convictions and practice since Vatican II.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the official compendium of Catholic doctrine as it now stands since Vatican II) states the following about conscience:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."--CCC 1782.

This now exists in Catholicism because that religion recognized grave and "sinful" errors on behalf of many of its members in various moments in the Church's own history where because of failing to recognize the freedom of conscience of other humans the Church itself, according to its own admission, committed grave offenses against God.

One of the most famous cases in which the Catholic Church admits it violated the principle of religious freedom for its own members is the case of St. Joan of Arc. In attempting to force Jeanne d'Arc to recant her actions and statements regarding personal revelations from heaven, the Church used extreme force on another human in an attempt to stop her communication with what Jeanne claimed were angels and saints offering her direction from God and attempted to dictate how Jeanne could or could not dress in response. In other words, as poetically expressed in the stage version written centuries later by George Bernard Shaw, the Church was 'punishing her for talking to God.' As history shows this young woman was burned at the stake for stating should would not violate her conscience in how she worshiped or the type of clothing she wished to wear.

The Church would later exonerate her of all charges, and after 500 years of examination into her case quite embarrassingly canonized her as a saint.

Her case is not the only instance the Church worked against itself. You would think a religion like Catholicism would want people to believe in earthly visions and miracles, but it likewise persecuted another French maiden, Bernadette Soubirous who received visions of the Virgin Mary, and several centuries again attempted to silence the events surrounding alleged appearances of the Virgin Mary to three children near Fatima, Portugal. Both situations would have the Church acquiesce to their validity, with St. Bernadette discovering the famed fountain at Lourdes, France and the apparitions in Fatima ending in the only alleged modern-day "miracle" witnessed by a large crowd of people.*

The Church has hoped to have learned its lesson, but as years have passed since Vatican II various popes have had to issue formal apologies for the violation of its own principles, not only to the Jews, but to Protestants, such as the recent papal apology from Pope Francis for the Church's persecution of the Waldensians. Many Catholics believe that the Holy See will eventually change its views regarding homosexuality, and thus predict that its current stand will again find the Church apologizing for being on the wrong side of history once more.

The cases involving St. Joan of Arc and the others following have involved testimony within the Church that religious freedom had been violated, but I have not seen this taken to an actual secular court. I also am not aware of the issue of freedom of conscience being considered a human right by any other religion in the same dogmatic fashion, definitely not in Watchtower theology.

*-The mention of the "miracles" in this post are not to be viewed as a personal belief in these events, in any formal religion, or inviting posts to disprove the events. The reality or lack thereof of the events being mentioned is not the point. The focus is that the Catholic Church, like the Jews who rejected Christ, often rejected its own so-called "prophets" and their "prophecies," even to the point of murdering the "messengers from God" in order to silence the alleged "messages from Heaven" and even, in the case of Lourdes and Fatima, to prevent crowds from witnessing "miracles" through force. The argument is not that these things are real or not, but that the Catholic Church understands very well that power can be so intoxicating that it can, will, and has caused faithful Catholics to "bite off their own foot in spite of themselves." Realizing the paradox caused by such ironic actions, the Church has made it a doctrine that any attempt to prevent a person from acting in accordance with their own conscience in matters religious, even in the rejection thereof, is a grave error. This still has not prevented the Church from repeating its mistakes in history, as it seems that all religions have a lust for silencing Heaven through bloodshed if necessary.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

David_Jay

SAHS,

But we mustn't delude ourselves either due to a distaste for worship of deities.

Religion is not always based around a cult of worship, nor do they all include deities or even an afterlife eschatology. Jainism for example is a humanist form of religion with no deity. The Jewish Sadducees as well many Jews today do not believe in an afterlife, and even those who do see no relevance in living with it as a goal in mind. Buddhism is a religion that seeks to free a person of all notions of and desires for eternity and has no central deity for worship.

Religion is not the opposite of atheism. It is a cultural system built around a set of mores and convictions that are employed to find the reason or explain one's place in the universe. While often employing ritual, these systems can be void of deity worship or seeking for the eternal.

Some who are (with good reason) done with religion often make general assumptions about religion as faulty as the credulous faith of some relgious people because of their failure to recognize that their own views can be subject to the same prejudices, ignorance, and/or simple emotion that in different forms can likewise cloud the thinking of "believers." When we fail to accept that being without religion cannot automatically prevent us from falling subject to the same process of self-delusion that is common to humanity, we might also fail to center our current state on a less than faulty conclusion.

Believing and keeping in mind that there is always a possibility that we can presently be mistaken in our current convictions is what got not a few of us in trouble before. We should always be prepared to improve our views and refine them. While not implying that this makes those who have chosen atheism or a new relgion after leaving the Watchtower in a position where we must now change our current views once again, no set of conviction excuses us from believing we are suddenly free from being capable of deluding ourselves becuase we are not adopting this particular view or that other one.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay