this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .
.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.
the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.
Great comments...
I would say that there may be times that ridiculing an idea (not the person) is the only response. But, I typically find that asking basic/obvious questions of a premise helps the other person realize that their idea might be ridiculous.
Also, I have found personally that if I am going to attempt humor, it is probably better to "Punch up. Don't punch down." In other words, I try to aim the humor at the privileged and powerful as opposed to the disenfranchised and powerless.
so we all know how ineffectual the preaching work really is.
we also know how much the wts hypes up the scope and scale of the global preaching effort.
what the gb should be doing however is emphasising the ineffectiveness of the preaching work.
But wait, God's plan falls apart even more when you consider what many JWs claim. At Armageddon, the idea is that "then they will know that I am Jehovah!". WTF? Ok. Imagine you are just an average person and fire starts raining from the sky, the earth splits open, lightning, thunder, etc. - i.e. another Michael Bay movie.
Between the time that you see it and the time that every atom of your being is separated from every other atom of your being, is your last thought going to be "Darn. I should have listened to those people that came to my door. I guess they were right after all. Oh, well. Well played, God. My bad...". Or, is it going to be "Holy Crap! WWIII is starting! Who did we piss off?" or "Asteroids!" or "Terrorists!" or something more in the forefront of the average mind?
Wait, it gets better as I have had JWs say that "Jehovah" would make it clear that it is him causing the destruction so there is no confusion. Wow! Ok. Maybe God should make himself clearly known before Armageddon and stop playing an eternal game of hide-and-seek. Maybe more people would believe.
If the goal is to save as many people as possible, I think a brain-dead ferret could come up with a better plan.
if you had to pinpoint the time or experience that finally made you open your eyes, what would it be?.
i think for me it was the time i saw my dad shun his brother who he had not seen in decades just because he was a da'ed jw.
i thought to my self "no way jesus would do that.
what if a person is thought to be possessed and nothing suspicious is found in their home, ie books, yard sale stuff, smurfs, etc..., will the elders perform an exorcism?
have any of you ever heard of a person getting exorcised?.
due to some recent developments i find myself in a new place, and at this point i've lost all of my family and fri....oh that's right, i never really had any friends in the organization anyway.
just people that wanted something from me and a few people that i would invite to do things that occasionally said yes.
the recent rejections of me got me thinking, so let's take a rejection inventory.. i had to reject all of the holidays when my parents started studying.. i had to reject any worldly friends that i already had.. even family became rejected, and the new religion had some place in that.. i was rejected in school and bullied all of the time, not just because we were poor and i made good grades, but for jw reasons too.
Congratulations, Dubstepped. Welcome to reality.
You have already been provided with great advice from other posters. The following is what I wish I could have said to myself when I walked out:
"The next few years will be scary and exhilarating. There will be LOTS of things you will learn but, more importantly, unlearn. Soak up all of the knowledge, freedom, and experiences you have been denied for years. Take every opportunity to educate yourself on everything from critical thinking to science to politics to religions and myths to social sciences and on, and on... For the past few years you have not been thinking for yourself but instead blindly following orders. You will not only need to learn facts but learn the skills to think critically to evaluate them properly.
QUESTION EVERYTHING! When you were in you were absolutely convinced you were right on just about everything. You may find that you are wrong on just about everything you believed and still believe.
Stop believing that the Organization (or JW family) have the "moral high-ground". That is purely an illusion. You will find better people and friends just about everywhere else.
And, don't be afraid. You will never be alone."
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
cofty - Once again so many people are hung up on the word "proof". It has no place in this sort of conversation. It belongs to mathematicians.
Good point. In my postings, I meant "proof" in the sense that it is used in law and science - i.e. that a particular hypothesis has been verified or discounted. I did not intend to imply the use of "proof" in the mathematical context. My apologies if I caused any confusion.
cofty - It's about reason. Our beliefs should be commensurate with the evidence. Theists care nothing for evidence, that's why they invented a faux virtue they call faith.
Couldn't agree more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eueuwshs1cg&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eueuwshs1cg&feature=youtu.be
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
FusionTheism - I do have problem with people adamantly declaring they DO KNOW that no Designer exists.
I totally understand. And, I think many atheist would agree that we can't say that "no Designer" exists. All that can be said by atheism is that the proposition that "there is a God(s)" has not met it's burden of proof. And, until such time that it does meet the burden of proof the intellectually honest stand would be "we don't know". And, many atheist will be the first to acknowledge that a designer exists when he presents demonstrable evidence.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
Quoting scientists has as much value to me as quoting the Bible (or Harry Potter books). My atheist position isn't based on what people say (or are interpreted to saying), but on what they can prove. If Stephen Hawking tomorrow said "there is a God!" it would not matter to me one bit. He would still need to provide demonstrable evidence that is not personal revelation or a feeling or guess.
Lately, I have found that the key argument for theism seems to boil down to an the inability to be ok with "we don't know" and instead fill the gap of knowledge with "because...God". "We don't know" followed by "let's find out" seems to be more productive. Not sure how "because God" benefits anyone.
