ros

Joined

• started 20 topics
• posted 321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by ros

• 
  42

  disfellowshipped elders reinstated

  by jnc in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would appreciate any info or experiences on this subject.... a brother is disfellowshipped, 2 years later reinstated, five years later disfellowshipped again, immorality, 4 years later reinstated, becomes elder, 8 years later runs off with pioneer 16 yr old , divorces wife , dumps girl, remarrys 5 years later, appointed elder again, i believe due to the buddy system, how many times do'es a person have to be disfellowshipped before they say no to any priveledges let alone being an elder again ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Makes Catholic confession seem like child's play, doesn't it?

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  JanH:

  Pointing out the absurdity of these logical arguments (which by the way is not MINE) only illustrates my point!
  Yoohoo, anyone in there?
  Its my contention that this form of logic CANNOT be employed to prove OR DISPROVE God. Its too bad you can't see the same irrationale using it to prove your point. I AGREE YOU CAN'T USE IT TO PROVE GOD!
  They probably don't call it absurdia for nothing.

  (PS: Try to save people's time by making sure url references do not start at the beginning of a new line. Thank you!)

  Okay, but why? What's the problem with starting a new line?
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Jan, you're wrong.

  There are lots of analyses out there about reductio ad absurdam, but here's one of the more simple:

  http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/cumphi1/Ontological%20Argument.html
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Hi, Alan:
  Thanks. Most of the stuff was way over my right-brain head, but I think I understand an important point about the equation that I have always misunderstood. I took "speed of light" to mean mass traveling at a speed the square of light-speed is energy. What you are saying is that mass is not traveling that speed; rather, the speed of light is just the numerical value that is squared. Makes a big difference. Thanks.

  Ros
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  JanH:

  What I did was to use reductio ad absurdum to disprove an idea. You demonstrate above you don't even recognize this technique.

  SURE Jan. Probably because your conclusion was not the antethesis of your initial assertion. Namely, point 5 would be "God does not exist."
  And speaking of ”quoting”, I suppose you never saw something like this site:
  http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~kim/Bevis.html

  Almost EXACTLY like your example, Jan, . . .Hmmm ;)
  with one little difference I just cannot resist pointing out:
  The arguments are in the order I said they were supposed to be.

  This application of reductio ad absurdum to disprove God makes as much sense as Anselm's use of it to prove God does exist. NOT. And there are plenty of viable critiques of this technique by logicians. (You did know that didn't you?)

  Really, Jan, all you have to do is start out with a statement that is the opposite of what you want to prove, throw in a premise that contradicts the statement, and thereby conclude that the opposite is true.
  I can do the same with the antethesis of your argument, i.e., by starting out with the assertion that "God does not exist":

  1. God does not exist.
  2. God made nothing.
  3. Nothing does not exist.
  4. Something exists.
  ==========================
  5. God exists.

  Or.

  1. God does not exist.
  2. God made nothing.
  3. God made nothing that is good.
  4. There are things that are good.
  =======================
  5. God exists.

  How anybody can think this kind of logic proves or disproves God is beyond me. I think the technique can be applied for proof of some simple things, but not the existence of God.
  But even so, your example (the same being the one at the above link) has a conspicuous flaw even for reductio ad absurdum:
  Your contradictory premise has to contradict the initial assertion you are trying to disprove, not one of the following assertions. You have simply proved that you do not understand the technique. In the case of your example, you have not proved that God does not exist, but (according to the logic technique) provided a contradictory statement to disprove the assertion that “Everything God made was good”. In other words, conclude that “God made evil”.

  Sorry, folks, I said I wouldn't, but I couldn't resist.
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Quester:
  Well, maybe there will be a few who get some benefit from the links.
  What kind of a "wake-up call" do you think?
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  teejay:
  The only point I originally intended to make is that fundamentalists, especially never-been-a-JW evangelicals, who come into exJW discussion groups to preach, succeed in steering more people to atheism than they "win souls" for their trinitarian Christianity. I did not MEAN to imply that ALL exJW atheists became atheists because of debates with fundamentalists.
  HOWEVER, let me quote one of JanH's statements in this thread:
  

  The reason that such a disproportionate number of exJWs on these message boards are non-believers, is presicely because of the theism debates . . .

  I rest my case. :D
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  outnfree:
  

  Firstly, what if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge AND ALSO HADN'T EVER EATEN OF the tree of life? WOULD they have lived forever?

  
  Well we can only speculate on the allegory, but I suggest that most people would eat of a tree that would keep them alive. :) Sort of like eating, period.
  According to the story, if they ate of the tree of life, they could live forever even though they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That's why they had to be put out of the garden where the tree was. What is not suggested is whether they would have to eat of it once to live forever or continually eat from it.
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Jan:
  Usually, as you well know, I have neither the interest nor the time to delve at length in these debates, but since it was I who started this thread, and admittedly I gave it an argumentive title which I should not have - for which I apologized to the atheists here (which nobody seems to have noticed - I will respond to you to some extent. I opened this can of worms, so I’ll take responsibility and reply to some of your points. However, I’m NOT going to get sucked into a looooong endless name-calling debate of God proof or what is logic or a debate about what is opinion and what is fact.

  One of things this thread shows very well is that atheists here do not contradict what other atheists say no matter how absurd the claims the other has made. They only take issue with the points of the believers, AND vice-versa. That alone proves that both sides are biased. There were some absolutely ridiculous assertions made in a couple of atheist replies (I don’t need to name them), and not one atheist stooped to point out the absurdities of another atheist. Interesting!

  First you ask a question, then you claim that those who claim logic lead them to disbelief are wrong, and when challenged on this, you "don't play those games." This has become a recurring pattern. If you can't deal with a rational discussion on these topics, why do you keep bringing it up?

  
  Okay, Jan, I have referred back to your first response in this thread, and I don’t see a reference to any question I asked. What question are you referring to that relates to your reply?

  Ros, do youself a favour and don't try to explain what logic is and is not. You haven't the faintest idea, as you repeatedly demonstrate.

  Well now, Jan, I can think of at least three different valid definitions of “logic”. You seem to be cognizant of only one of them, the “scientific” model of logic. There is also the general definition that means “reasonable based on common sense”, and then there is computer “logic”.

  Regarding the one (scientific) term you limit yourself to, let me submit some links with a few selected quotes on this subject of “logic”. The following will be quotes and links to articles of both atheists and of believers, on the subject of “logic” as it relates to belief in God, the “Christian God”, and/or the Bible. For the most part, I agree with the athesists’ assessments of “logic” as it relates to proving or disproving God, which is more than I can say for yours.

  Quote from atheist philosopher Michael Martin in a rebuttal to believer Dr. Greg Bahnsen:
  Ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

  Deductive Logic and the Claim of TAG (TAG=” Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God”)

  Let us understand deductive logic to be the study of valid deductive arguments; that is, arguments in which the premises necessitate the conclusion. On this common understanding IF the premises of an argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true. Deductive validity is determined by the form of the argument and not the content of the premises. An example of a valid deductive argument is:

  All dogs are brown
  Rover is a dog
  ==============
  Therefore, Rover is brown.
  . . .
  . . . Does the rejection of logical conventionalism entail the truth of Christianity? In the Stein-Bahnsen debate, Stein assumed that deductive logic is a human convention that has nothing to do with God, Christian or otherwise.
  . . .
  Stein was in good company in adopting logical conventionalism. However, it is not the only position that is compatible with atheism and it is not clear that it is best position to take. One problem with this approach to logic is that it is unclear how one can interpret the law of non contradiction--not (p and non-p)--in pragmatic terms. This law is presupposed in all valid deductive reasoning and rational thought. However, the negation of this law is not just pragmatically suspect--it is a contradiction. As one commentator has put it under suitable conventions for the use of "not" and "and" one could not think or speak "in contravention of the principle which under the usual convention is expressed by 'not (p and not-p)'" Surely what is conventional is the language used to express the proposition that it is not the case that (p and not-p) and not the truth of the proposition itself.
  . . .
  Logic and Metaphysic
  However, it is a long way from admitting that the deductive validity , for example, is not conventional to the conclusion Bahnsen needs: namely, that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God. As Bahnsen himself argued there are many different interpretations of logic. No doubt. But on the vast majority of these interpretations

  deductive validity is independent of God. What possible arguments could be constructed to arrive at the conclusion that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God? Perhaps this is what Bahnsen had in mind:
  (1) Either deductive validity is conventional or it is not.
  (2) If it is not conventional, it must have a metaphysical explanation.
  (3) If it has a metaphysical explanation, then the best metaphysical explanation is that it is created by the Christian God.
  (4) Deductive validity is not conventional.
  _________________________________________________
  5) Therefore, the best metaphysical explanation of the deductive validity is that it was created by the Christian God.
  This argument is formally valid. The crucial question is whether the premises are true. Let us grant premises (1) and (4). However, premises (2) and (3) are problematic.

  Conclusion
  This part of TAG fails. Bahnsen

  [ and JanH’s premisis 1 ] gave no good reasons why logic presupposes the Christian God. There is nothing inconsistent in asserting that deductively validity is possible and that Christianity is false. He seems to have misunderstood both materialism, and logical conventionalism. The argument that without the Christian God it would be a mystery of how logic applies to the world has been shown to be without merit. Logic may not need a metaphysical foundation as Bahnsen assumes and, even if it does, it need not be a Christian one. Moreover, the exact notion of a Christian account of logic is unclear. On one interpretation, it is incoherent and on another it is problematic.
  ======================

  I agree with this because it seems Bahnsen is trying to prove God by logic. I agree with the contention that the existence or nonexistence of God is not deducible by logic. From my recollection of the study of “logic” (and its been a few years so don’t hold me to this being all-inclusive) is that the root of all logical deductions is based on an original premise that is “self-evident” and therefore not deducible by logic. For example, in math (the only “absolute science”), 0 and 1 cannot be deduced by math, but all other math is derived from this first “self-evident” assumption.

  NOW, Jan, let’s evaluate your example of logical deduction that Farkel was sooo impressed with:

  For example (pretty roughly):
  1. God exists.
  2. All that God creates are good.
  3. God has created everything.
  4. There exists something that is not good.
  There is a contradiction here between 2-4 and 1. We have demonstrated that given these premises, no God (1) exists.

  Your first premise is not a premise, it’s a “presupposition”. If you trying to prove or disprove God, you cannot start out with a presupposition that “God exists”. Your first premise cannot be its own conclusion nor the opposite. At best your example would lend to logically substantiating or not the existence of “evil”, but this is where your premises conflict. Since your premises contradict each other, there is no basis for logical conclusion.

  My view on your other premises is covered below in discussing “good” relative to the Genesis story.

  LOL. Please explain how the order is significant. I am waiting.

  Simple. How can be created “good” before it is created. If premises 2 is valid, there is no need for premisis 3. A thing cannot be created good before it is created. C’mon Jan. Its no biggee. its just that your example tends to suggest a certain “logical” order.

  Second, the word “good”, if you are applying it in the sense of Genesis 1, and "good" in your premisis 4 have different meanings.One (2) means accomplished according to plan, and the other (4) means wicked or painful. The two do not correlate.

  So you say, but you have done nothing to substantiate this assertion. of course, if there were two meanings of "good", your attempted debunking could be successful. I did not post that example of a deductive argument to prove god's nonexistence conclusively (which requires more elaborate work and discussion!), but to show that as long as premises and arguments are correct, the conclusion is necessarily true and in accordance with facts.

  I agree with this point. However, your logic example starts out with an unsubstantiated premise, therefore it cannot be used to substantiate or illustrate your point.

  Rather than argue the definition of the word “good” in the Genesis account, I’m going to address it on the assumption that your definition is correct, that the word “good” in Genesis 1-3 means “righteous”.

  To begin with, I want to make it very clear that I and many other Christians hold the Genesis account to be Alegory—not intended to be taken literally. I’ll cite one text that I think illustrates this to be a fact:

  Genesis 2:4
  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

  So here we have by its own account 6 days=generations=one day. Its allegory, folks.

  When Genesis says that everything God made was “good” (whatever way you understand it) it was referring to those things mentioned that God had created. But in the second account of the same creation story, in Genesis 2:9
  “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

  Right there, in the creation story’s own account, it acknowledges the existence of evil. Whether God created evil, or whether He made creation allowing for the possibility of evil, the existence of evil was stated as evident and knowable. The tree that God made (according to the allegory), at the very least, allowed access to evil. Whether God made evil or did not make evil is irrelevant to whether He exists.

  Still, and above all else in this argument, your premise that everything God made is “good” is based on one allegory (Genesis 1) that if taken literally is not consistent with the next allegorical account (Genesis 2). Neither account provides substance for “proof” that a Creator does not exist, whether you like Him/Her/It or not. The existence of evil is no more a good argument that God does not exist than it would be to say that the existence of good proves the existence of God.

  However, before this gets off on a prove-or-disprove-God by deductive reasoning (logic), we both know that cannot be done.

  Of course that is just rubbish. The universe does behave in accordance with deductive logic. There exists and cannot exist anything that leads into a logical contradiction. What you say above it totally absurc, and again demonstrates you don’t know what logic is.

  LOL! Here are some more “logic” links for you, Jan.

  http://library.thinkquest.org/25448/thinkqst.htm
  http://library.thinkquest.org/25448/God.htm

  http://hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Jul_2/msg00002.html
  QUOTE this atheist:
  "God Exists ?" A talk in logic
  Is There God ?
  A talk between an A. Atheist/Agnostic B. Betul C. Christian

  A. Can you logically prove that god exists ?

  B. Yes. Proof in any system requires Axioms. For example in
  Euclidean Geometry 5 axioms are taken to be true bu their
  virtue. Proofs for other theorems are based on these. In a
  system, god's existance can be taken as an axiom and used to
  build an explaination for the universe or can be proved using
  appropriate axioms.

  A. In the same way, I can also prove that there is no god.

  B. In the same way, I can prove that you do not exist. In fact,
  did you know that you are just a dynasaur's dream ? But you say
  you exist. Why do you say so ? How do you know you exist ?
  Cotigo ergo sum ?

  A. Because I know I exist. I feel myself with my senses.

  B. But it could be a "maya", an illusion.

  A. It could be. but I believe it is not.

  B. Similarily people know, feel and believe god to exist.

  A. But you could not prove god's existance.

  B. I just "proved" that a challenge such as prove god exists
  is illogical.

  A. But that leaves us where we were. I am still not convinced
  god exists.
  =========================

  And while we’re at it, here are a few choice quotes from the Talk Origins site (a predominantly skeptic site, but it has excellent information, especially on the subject of evolution):

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
  From talk.origins FAQ - God and Evolution:
  Q1: Doesn't evolution contradict religion?
  Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.
  Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.
  . . .
  Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?
  First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

  Q5: Does evolution deny the existence of God?
  No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
  There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

  On the believers’ side, here’s an interesting site from a scientist (physicist). (Anybody want to venture a guess as to how many of the atheists here will look these up and read them?

  Tim Stout a physicist.
  http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/welcome.shtml

  Also these:
  http://solargeometry.com/index.htm
  http://solargeometry.com/Proofs.htm

  ========================
  Okay, Jan this is my response. After this, with your inevitable brilliant rebuttals like “this is rubbish” etc., I’m going to let you have the last word. This is as far as I’m taking time on this futility.

  I’m sorry I started this thread, but this is as far as I’m going to own up to it. It just takes too much time for nothing gained. I agree with Mulan.
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Farkel:
  My thing is I really do not like to argue. It is quite possible that Norm is right--I shouldn't participate on boards where arguing is the sport and anyone who does not like to argue is just not playing the game.

  I certainly have no problems with your personal beliefs, but like all personal religious beliefs, they cannot be substantiated with any formal logic.

  If you'll look back, even I said that.
  I just don't happen to believe that God has to be created in your image of Him. I don't perceive creation the way you think it has to be for God to exist. Maybe you think auto-evolution has all these have-to-be traits. That's fine with me. What ever will be will be.
  What people just can't seem to get through their heads, even when I back down and express some of my views, is that I'm not trying to convince anyone to change THEIR mind.

  I'm getting tired of this. I think I'll let you guys to back to wrangling with the fundies.