Posts by cognisonance

35

What was the "logical straw" that broke your camel's back?

by Pacopoolio in

jw
friends

i had a bunch of tiny little nags that always bothered me about the bible/god/etc.

that eventually led to me drifting away, but this was my personal, singular issue that no one could address.

i think i mentioned it before here, but, for summation again:.

cognisonance

The flaw(s) for me were in how they misrepresented science and secular sources.

I was born in and the mind control was strong with me unfortunately. But the two brochures on Was Life Created and the other one dealing with 5 questions got me really thinking. I decided I wanted to independently study evolution (read the book "Why Evolution is True") then came back to those brochures, then looked up the references. Then I took a look at the evolution book, reasoning book, and Is There A Creator book. The later had a quote about intellectual honesty, and what they failed to include was that in addition to having an open mind about views contrary to our own, we should also disclose opposing views to others when talking about our own. In short, we shouldn't sweep with Occam’s broom inconvenient truths under the rug. Of course they didn't talk about that, choosing to sweep that inconvenient point away as well. I also became more aware of the logic fallacies being used in the literature via doing my indepenpent study (specifically studied logic fallacies).

Also there was an article on higher education that insinuated that going to college isn’t correlated with getting a good job. They quote an article incorrectly to essentially say this. What the article was really saying was that going to an Ivy League private prestigious school isn’t correlated with getting a better job than if similarly bright students were to go to public state colleges. Quite a different thing than comparing going to college vs not going to college.

As regards doctrines aside form evolution, I just went along with them even if sometimes they didn’t make much sense to me. Again the mind control was strong with me and I just followed what I was told most of the time. It’s really a shame since it took a while for the damage to be undone. I found myself after being out of the cult, consulting scientific literature to form my opinions on things, not bad per se, but still my critical thinking was a bit dual because I still found it difficult to think fully on my own. I took about 2 years to undo the damage from the cult. Good riddens!

35

What was the "logical straw" that broke your camel's back?

by Pacopoolio in

jw
friends

i had a bunch of tiny little nags that always bothered me about the bible/god/etc.

that eventually led to me drifting away, but this was my personal, singular issue that no one could address.

i think i mentioned it before here, but, for summation again:.

cognisonance

Pacopoolio,

Sounds like you came across, independently perhaps, with the idea of determinism. You might enjoy reading this book: Freedom Evolves by Dannel Dennnet.

15

New Watchtower Article: "Morals Without God?"

by cognisonance in

...or rather what you wouldn't find in a watchtower .

morals without god (new york times article).

can we envision a world without god?

cognisonance

...or rather what you wouldn't find in a watchtower :

Morals Without God (New York Times Article)

Can we envision a world without God? Would this world be good? Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort. They are helpful for those prepared to listen, but fail to reach their target audience. The debate is less about the truth than about how to handle it. For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.

23

Every JW should pay attention to Steven Pinker's lecture: A History of Violence

by cognisonance in

came across this lecutre (or alternatively you can read the transcript) in a class from yale on moralities of everyday life:.

a history of violence edge master class 2011some excepts:.

"believe it or notand i know most people do notviolence has been in decline over long stretches of time, and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.".

cognisonance

Came across this lecutre (or alternatively you can read the transcript) in a class from Yale on Moralities of everyday life:

A History of Violence Edge Master Class 2011

Some excepts:

"Believe it or not—and I know most people do not—violence has been in decline over long stretches of time, and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence."

"The fourth historical decline of violence has been called the "Long Peace." It speaks to the widespread belief that the 20th century was the most violent in history, which would seem to go against everything that I've said so far. Peculiarly, one never sees, in any of the claims that the 20th century was the most violent in history, any numbers from any century other than the 20th.

There's no question that there was a lot of violence in the 20th century. But take, for comparison, the so-called peaceful 19th century. That "peaceful" century had the Napoleonic wars, with four million deaths, one of the worst in history; the Taiping Rebellion in China, by far the worst civil war in history, with 20 million deaths; the worst war in American history, the Civil War; the reign of Shaka Zulu in southern Africa, resulting in one to two million deaths; the war of the Triple Alliance, which is probably the most destructive interstate war in history in terms of percentage of the population killed, namely 60 percent of Paraguay; the African slave raiding wars (no one has any idea what the death toll was); and of course, imperial wars in Africa, Asia and the South Pacific.

These remarks are all qualitative, meant to damp down the tendency to think that just because in Europe there was a span of several decades without war, that the world as a whole was peaceful in the 19th century as a whole.

What about genocide? The last couple of graphs plot what are called "state-based conflicts, where you have two organized armed forces fighting, at least one of which is a government. What about cases in which governments kill their own citizens? Again, there's a cliché that the 20th century was the Age of Genocide. But the claim is never made with any systemic comparison of previous centuries.

Historians who have tried to track genocide over the centuries are unanimous that the notion that the 20 th was "a century of genocide" is a myth. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, their The History and Sociology of Genocide, write on page one, "Genocide has been practiced in all regions of the world and during all periods in history."

What did change during the 20th century was that for the first time people started to care about genocide. It's the century in which the word "genocide" was coined and in which, for the first time, genocide was considered a bad thing, something to be denied instead of boasted about.

As Chalk and Jonassohn say of ancient histories, "We know that empires have disappeared and that cities were destroyed, and we suspect that some wars were genocidal in their results. But we do not know what happened to the bulk of the populations involved in these events. Their fate was simply too unimportant. When they were mentioned at all, they were usually lumped together with the herds of ox and sheep and other livestock."

To give some examples: if Old Testament history were taken literally, there were genocides on almost every page; the Amalakites, Amarites, Canaanites, Hivites, Hitites, Jevasites, Midianites, Parazites and many other. Also, genocides were committed by the Athenians in Melos; by the Romans in Carthage; and during the Mongol invasions, the Crusades, the European wars of religion, and the colonization of the Americas, Africa and Australia.

2

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

by cognisonance in

biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'covert messiah' conference at conway hall in london on the 19th of october to present this controversial discovery to the british public.. http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm.

cognisonance

Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

55

"You knew what the consequences were when YOU decided to leave The Truth. This is YOUR decision and the outcome is YOUR responsibility."

by nicolaou in

how many of us have had to deal with a version of that retort?!

it's hurtful and i suspect - for some - that's partly because of the nagging feeling that our families may have a point.. but do they?.

i was 15 when i got baptised, is it reasonable that as the 50 year old man i'll be on my next birthday i continue to be held to a decision i made as a schoolboy?.

cognisonance

I enjoyed this thread, as I have heard that line before and it always burned me up inside. The blame is being put on us. By their logic, our loved ones too made a decision and have responsibility. After all they signed up for this religion too, which should mean it has the consequences of having to shun anyone that leaves, even a family member, or risk loosing their "relationship with god" or getting kicked out too.

I know some family and friends of mine who struggle with shunning me, doing it becuase they think it's the "right thing to do" or is required of them, but I can tell they really don't want to have to do it. They are just as "free" to not shun me as I was to leave. In the end, it's much easier to just blame me instead and say this is all my fault, not see that the problem is with the religion.

12

Feeling not well: guilt

by Gorbatchov in

gorby is not feeling well at the moment.

wife and kids went to the kh last week.

gorby stayed at home watching live soccer game psv - milan.

cognisonance

Gorby,

It is frustrating. I lost my spouse, my childhood best friend, and other family members I car about. I also do have some found memories in the cult, so I can relate to feeling ambilient at times. Sometimes looking back it seems almost to crazy to be true, how can anyone believe that religion, but yet here we are and our family does indeed believe. Hang in there. Feel free to vent here. I like this website as it seems to help as a support group in a way.

-Cog

124

Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty in

thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.

however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.

sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.

cognisonance

The ambiguity of language and failing to agree on precise meanings BEFORE discussing leads to time wasted on confusion... If it weren't for such ambiguity, internet forum debates would cease today, and peace and goodwill would break out amongst men!

+1

The imprecision of language is a big problem. This is why I tried to help clarify what is meant by an "incontrovertible" [scientific] fact. As former JWs I'm sure we all remember how the leadership would say they aren't a cult becuase it doesn't match their definition, etc.

124

Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty in

thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.

however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.

sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.

cognisonance

(I am aware DNA is said to point to a common origin for all life on earth, but is that really certain either? Or just a good construction on the basis of the current understanding?)

I assist with bioinformatics at a lab studying evolutionary biology. The probability that Humans and Chimpanzees share a more recent common ancestor than Gibbons, Gorillas, and Baboons is so high (or for many other phylogenetic analyses), that we might as well call it “really certain.”

Studying the DNA relationships between organisms and determining how they are related by common ancestry commonly uses Bayesian probabilities. In this statistical framework evidence (data) about whether something is true or not is expressed in terms of degrees of belief, how certain something is to be the case.

So with common ancestry as mentioned above, there is a very high probability that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

So no, in this specific example, I cannot say with 100% certainty that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, when you take this evidence and combine it with other forms of DNA evidence, and especially other independent fields of science all coming to the same conclusion (common ancestry), it becomes very difficult to see evolution as anything other than a scientific fact, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. Such trueness is provisional of course, since it can be improved upon.

Think of it this way. Gravity is a scientific fact. Has been that way back in Newton’s day, through Einstein’s, and up to our day. Yet, the specifics about gravity have changed overtime. What people accept as fact in the 1800s has changed. But the underlying fundamentals have not. Common ancestry is just one of those fundamentals. It’s a scientific fact.

31

(dumb?) Fox News Host says Stupid Things to Scholar Who Wrote About Jesus

by fulltimestudent in

whether this woman asked these questions of her own accord, or they were written by staffers, is not the point.

the real point is how can people in a country with some of the world's best universities ask such dumb questions.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhmllq-odw#at=13.

... and if you wonder what reza aslan's views are about jesus, listen to him here, courtesy of all saints church in pasadena a few days ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zi4o242d2s.

cognisonance

Unfortunately, like many here the interviewer did not do her research and ask the right questions. Searching the web one learns he does not have a PHD in religion, while he does have a PHD.

He does not teach religion, he is an assistant Professor of Creative Writing at University of California, Riverside.

He is founder of a media company, specializing in Middle East media.

Do a search yourself, (while I found many of his writings appear to have been scrubbed there is still much out there) and decide, can a person who misrepresents his own background be trusted to present accurate information.

I'm not so sure he misrepresented himself. He has a PhD in Sociology of Relgion.

Additionally, as regards being a professor/historian of religion, here is a comment defending Aslan's credentials on the First Thoughts article that questions them:

Mark Juergensmeyer July 29th, 2013 | 9:19 pm Since i was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.

The original source is his tweet and comment:

I explain Reza Aslan's relig studies credentials in a comment I've posted at the end of the First Things piece. http:// bit.ly/16uDYH4