Posts by adamah

32

New here

by Brainfloss in

well,i have been lurking here for a couple of years.

i was babtized at 16 for all of the wrong reasons and when i moved out after highschool i really never looked back, although i suppose i always thought it was the truth.

at 36 i met the love of my life.

adamah

Welcome aboard, Brainfloss!

Whatever reason you leave the JWs, it's always the right decision!

Adam

57

Are Evolution & Morality Mutually Exclusive?

by shadow in

there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .

if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.

adamah

Heh, heh: the irony of Bible believers pointing out how people are going to commit adultery and blame it on evolution.

Apparently they haven't read the OT, where even despite God establishing monogamous marriage with Adam and Eve, there were subsequently various accounts of polygamy amongst the OT men of God, who managed to "spread their genes" via buying female slaves (AKA concubines):

http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8 , God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3 .

Love how they spin it as "wives of lower status", as if to dismiss the fact they were slaves.

Fact is, women were mere possessions/chattel under Mosaic Law, and maybe that's what these believers are secretly hoping for: a return to the Good Ol' Days, when one could have all the wifes they could buy? Do they want 'superior morality', or morality that allows them to buy women?

I'd say a better question for the thread should be:

Are theism and morality mutually-exclusive?

Adam

16

i am vocal visible apostate with a transgender kid i support publicly and i am getting HUGGED in public by an active witness; WHY??

by chickpea in

my initial withdrawal from the cult about 5 years ago or so, was as a fader, but now there is no doubt i am so over the cult, having publicly sat on the board of the local pflag chapter!

my bumper stickers declare don't believe everything you think and stop the violence; legalize marijuana (also a generic pflag sticker)... i am out and i aint coming back and i denounce the cult as a cult, i never call it anything else... .

today at the local food co-op a congregant saw me and bee-lined it over to hug me!

adamah

Yeah, maybe she's having her doubts and knows you've "been there, done it" and got the bumper sticker.

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

adamah

BOTR said-

You make many assumptions what Christians believe. People believe many forms of Christianity.

You didn't read many prior posts in this thread, for on this very page above, I responded to the claim of pigeonholing mrhhome:

Adam said- This may be a news-flash for you, but with 35,000 flavors of Xianity alone, there are plenty of pigeon holes to go around. In fact, given that many individuals in the same denomination may proclaim quite a divergence of beliefs, I'd say that it's more likely for there to be 7 billion concepts of God out there, which should tell you something: could it be that all these various images of God(s) are actually stemming from the images created in the minds of men? Ya' think?

So here's a tip: before accusing someone of pigeon-holing, you might want to read their carefully-word explanation of how the onus is on indivduals to explain what their beliefs are BEFORE proceeding, since it's impossible for me to assume anything about what a particular Xian believes, since it's such a hodge-podge of possibile beliefs that fly under the banner.

The believer has to TELL others what they believe, and just as above with myelaine, we need to carefully define words that are thrown around glibly without giving it a second-thought before proceeding much further. Eg, just last night, I was talking to someone who claimed to believe in the Trinity, but then he described beliefs that were more consistent with NOT believing in the Trinity. He actually held contradictory beliefs, since many believers don't even actually KNOW what they believe, since many have never given all that much thought about the implications until they're asked by someone who knows what the typical doctrinal belief actually is.

BOTR said- I find it a useful way to question existence. Christ is the norm for my culture. I am certain that other religions have their own paths to God. As I said, I have many questions. Christianity provides me a community where I can ask questions. All Christians are witnesses for Christ. It is not an exceptional statement.

Thanks for sharing those random observations, but I'm a bit confused: you list the benefits of claiming to believe, but you don't actually say if you believe in Gods and supernatural beings (simply asking questions is not a statement of belief)?

BOTR said- No, I did not see Jesus resurrected. I accept the stories on one level. Not everything must be viewed literally. People can pick and choose what to believe.

See, you prove the point I was making above, as how am I supposed to know what every Xianchooses to believe unless they say?

I choose to live an evidence-based life, where my beliefs FOLLOW the evidence, and as such, I cannot cherry-pick my evidence based on if it supports my pre-accepted beliefs: that's exactly what the WTBTS does by cherry-picking quotes.

That said, how do you deal with thinking that if Jesus wasn't resurrected LITERALLY (and then ascending after resurrection), it means you're resting hopes on Jesus serving as a personal savior when Jesus couldn't even get himself to Heaven? Then how could Jesus serve as a mediator for anyone else?

If you mean Jesus' resurrection is 'symbolic', I'd love to hear your explanation for the MEANING of the symbolism of the resurrection.

BOTR said- You are not the truth police, enforcing "atheism" on all. No one elected you.

It seems you're dealing with authoritarian issues, as if you feel the need to make such statements (you DO realize that's no different than a petulant child who sticks out their tongue and says, "you're not the boss over me!"). Why would you even feel the need to say that?

Does asking these types of questions make you uncomfortable?

Anyway, this site is read by lurking JWs (and ex-JWs) who ARE commonly prone to engaging in magical and superstitious thinking, believing they're entitled to dogmatically believe only what they personally want to believe, and let the facts be damned: that's a personality trait that makes them vulnerable to join into groups of like-minded thinkers. Now if you think their minds can be broken free by persisting in the same illogical thought patterns that led them to conclude that joining a cult was a good idea in the first place, then you and I fundamentally disagree. Breaking the cycle of the cult requires modification of dysfunctional thought patterns, which are part of the multi-factorial problem; part of the "cure" is to abandon magical wishful thinking to gain a new way of looking at reality.

YES, it's their right to "return to their own vomit", but it's often only a different flavor of the same nonsense they left behind with the JWs (eg we've seen the Brahma Kumaris cult recruiter recently on JWN).

BOTR said- The world does not have to be conquered by atheism. Other people have religious and associational rights. It is a personal decision. I am not stupid. Indeed, I have plenty of company. Respect is nice. Otherwise, I fail to see the difference between an atheist and a JW. Domination of someone else's belief appears to the same. It seems that we were so regimented as Witnesses and not allowed a personal thought that we overcompensate. A zealot is a zealot.

I'm guessing you're not a big fan of the saying, "better to ask questions that cannot be answered, than to have questions that cannot be asked"?

Anyway, I can't make anyone believe anything except by powers of reasoning: note that the JWs and Xians sell their schtick via powers of 'appeals to emotion'. Some people actually enjoy allowing their amygdala to run free and unfettered, allowing their emotional reactions to control their lives. So fine, cest la vie, but it carries the risk of handing over the reins of control to others, who can take advantage of it to play them like a fiddle: that point should be self-evident on an ex-JW board, I'd think?

BOTR said- I truly see no difference between AGuest's orders to obey her voices and attempts to pummel every Christian or any person of faith. Live and let live. It is one thing to argue for your position and another to accuse people of stupidity. I assure you that I am not stupid. It is my choice for myself.

And where does rationalism fit into that? So no respect for reality, i.e. what actually IS, vs what you'd LIKE to be true, BOTR? Somewhat surprising for a lawyer not to understand the concept of allowing the evidence to lead the conclusion?

Fact is, the ones who should be most concerned about what they believe are the individuals themselves; I'm pretty comfortable in my own head, and don't have an irrational fear of death, etc. I lost that when I committed to believing in "stuff" AFTER sufficient evidence was presented, and NOT BEFORE (frees up much space by not falling for conspiracy theories, UFOs, Bildenberg/9/11 plots, fairies, gods, demons, etc).

You may not realize that I wasn't in the JWs: unlike my sibs, I made a break from the group (father was an UBM) as a teen and got an education, instead of just knocking on doors as an unpaid volunteer of WTBTS. My siblings weren't so fortunate: they gave their lives to serving the JWs, in the name of chasing a New System pipe dream. Talk about wasted potential of lives, all based on believing in Jesus and Jehovah. THAT'S the cost of belief, and don't forget about the ever-mounting death toll caused by JWs who refuse blood transfusion.

NEVER forget that, as you're starting to come off as just another Xian apologetist who wants to believe what you want to believe, and damn the evidence, since it provides YOU with a serotonin high that makes you feel all warm and loved inside. Such beliefs come at an unknown and incalculable cost to society, so just remember: it's not all about YOU.

Adam

2

Pat Robertson argues against shunning

by laverite in

jw
friends

it is so sad that the jws continue to shun.

i just don't see that ever changing, it's so heavily entrenched in the organization.

even if the org were to lighten up, so many hardliners would continue hard core shunning.. pat robertson isn't known for being the most liberal christian in the media, but in this video he argues that there's nothing to gain from shunning.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py7_qjmm4r8.

adamah

BOTR said-

Too bad Pat Robertson's conduct and past crazy statements deprive him of any credibility. He is not my model Christian minister. Far, far from it.

True dat, since he made some real eyebrow raiser comments like saying the earthquake in Haiti was punishment for making a pact with the Devil, etc.

Laverite said-

It is so inhumane to those who are shunned, and their families.

I didn't see Pat Robertson saying anything like that; he said at the end that it wasn't a Xian lifestyle, and wasn't exactly endorsing it. He said the non-gay family had to look out for their daughters, since they wouldn't want them to grow up to be lesbians (as if it's a choice).

But anyway, pointing out that it's inhuman to shun since it causes emotional pain is exactly what it is supposed to do, and hence why it's pointless to point that out: it only provides confirmation to the group that the shunning is having a desired effect (causing emotional distress).

Rather, it's important to focus on the harm it causes the persons who are manipulated by the group to shun their own family members, since the injury and psychological harm on the individual is paradoxically even greater (they're throwing their own flesh and blood under the bus, in order to save face and maintain their congregational status).

The situation is very similar to Stanley Milgram's work on obedience to authority figures, where otherwise loving and normal people could be compelled to deliver lethal electical shocks by being ordered to do so:

http://awgue.weebly.com/countering-jw-shunning-how-the-implications-of-stanley-milgrams-work-may-suggest-using-a-different-approach.html

Adam

57

Are Evolution & Morality Mutually Exclusive?

by shadow in

there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .

if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.

adamah

Shadow said-

adamah: I have not lost faith in God and thus have a basis for morality which is absent for the disciple of evolution

I suspect you're confusing obedience to authority with exercising morality. Most JWs (and hence ex-JWs) don't understand the difference, since they only ask, "wait a minute: what are we supposed to believe?"

The problem is the Holy Book offers zippo guidance on many issues, eg stem cell research, nuclear arms control, etc. Such things weren't even a twinkle in the eyes of ancient men, and Bible principles (such as love your neighbor as yourself) don't help much when it comes to defining what is or isn't allowable.

USR said-

adam: laws change from country to country. so which is correct.

Why would assume "one size fits all" is a necessary requirement, or even a worthy goal?

You prefer such totalitarian approaches?

Heck, if you live in the US, on the issue of medicinal use of marijuana, we have a complex web of Federal laws and various state laws.

Most JWs are told not to worry their pretty-little heads getting involved, and are told they have an answer in Jehovah. That's probably why you don't see the value of the democratic process, where local communities are able to hash out such issues on their own, to make laws to fit their needs.

Adam

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

adamah

Myelaine said-

God is holy we can not live in the presence of God because we are unholy.

Sorry, elaine, but that's gibberish unless you're willing to define the terms you use, eg what do YOU think 'Holy' means? Try to offer a non-circular definition (eg avoid saying that it's a property of God, which is only rephrasing what you claimed when you said "God is Holy").

Act like I don't know what the word "holy" refers to.

Oh, and feel free to take a stab at the question addressed to TEC, as well:

Give ONE example of a "truth" spoken of by Jesus? I don't mean a generic WISDOM saying, or a reference to the promise of the Kingdom of God, etc, but a useful CONCRETE truth that was later proven to be a fact, i.e. something spoken by Jesus which advanced the knowledge of mankind.

57

Are Evolution & Morality Mutually Exclusive?

by shadow in

there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .

if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.

adamah

Cantleave said-

Shadow there have been lots of threads on this subject, might be time to learn how to use the "search" facility on this site.....Read some books on evolutionary psychology - much better than ridiculous "holy" books.

Believe us, Shadow: although your personal sense of narcissism may suggest to you otherwise, you're not the first person to lose their belief in God and have to consider the possibility of having to sort thru moral issues under your own power (which is exactly what humans have had to do for millenia, anyway, since that's exactly what the Bible has allowed them to do)....

57

Are Evolution & Morality Mutually Exclusive?

by shadow in

there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .

if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.

adamah

USR said-

shadow: morals for an athiest can not come from a higher source, so in reality each person can decide what is moral or not. but it cant be tested

Have you never heard of secular laws, then?

If there were no internal other moral restraints (and there ARE), then Federal prison is a pretty-strong deterrent to keep people from trying to determine morality as a DIY experiment.

Adam

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

adamah

TEC, you sure use a loose definition of "truth"? But regardless, can you give ONE example of a "truth" spoken of by Jesus? I don't mean a WISDOM saying, or a reference to the promise of the Kingdom of God, etc, but a useful CONCRETE truth that was a proven fact, a breakthrough for the knowledge of mankind.

TEC said- Truth is truth... regardless of if you and others want to label some as a 'wisdom saying'... or some about His coming Kingdom.

Holy Hades, TEC: are you still struggling with the Law of Identity (which most people learned as children), since you seemingly feel the need to constantly confirm it?

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”: “A is A and not ~A”. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence.

Worse, you seem to think it actually somehow constitutes a valid argument, when anyone can clearly see it's patently obvious, a law of identity, which arguably only constitutes an attempt at circular logic.

So please promise me that next time you feel the urge to repeat silly meaningless phrases like, "the truth is the truth", you'll catch yourself and refrain, rather than simply repeating an utterly unnecessary statement that only fills dead air, since YES, we all KNOW that things ARE in fact what they ARE: a dog is a dog, a car is a car, a house is a house, etc. That's by way of agreement, which is accepted.

However, I asked for an example of a TRUTH offered by Jesus.

TEC SAID- He said He would be resurrected and return to His Father... that would fall under scientific truths (which i think you are asking about). Can science prove or replicate this? Not yet. We are, after all, still babes in science (maybe elementary school kids)... but Christ is not.

I asked for a TRUTH, NOT a knowledge claim that must be taken on FAITH. Belief in the resurrection is actually an article of FAITH in Xianity, which is a big HINT that it's not a verifiable FACT (a truth). As Hebrews 11 describes, the idea is that Xian faith is based on the HOPE that Jesus has the power to offer salvation and admittance into Heaven.

I suspect you're unable to discriminate between beliefs which are based on convictions (perceivable evidence), and beliefs that are based on faith (no evidence). You and I know you weren't there to witness Jesus' resurrection, and how it's dreadfully easy to write fantabulous claims in writings (there's an entire category of literature called 'fiction', where the imagination of the author is used to write stories, sometimes relying on the plot-line of the works of other prior authors).

One could also argue about what truth means. I feel Jesus was limited by the knowledge available in the first century. He was a prophet. It is unclear whether he himseself saw himself as the Messiah.

TEC SAID- Christ was not limited by the knowledge available in the first century... but the people who followed Him were limited... as in: limited in what they could understand and accept. But Christ said, "I have much more to tell you, that you cannot yet bear..."

Yes, here's more chance to blame the humans for being unable to keep up with the 'smoke and mirrors' guy, who spoke obtusely (eg in parables, AKA analogies) to create the impression of knowing stuff which he didn't know in order to give away snake oil cures.

So I repeat the question: give me ONE example of a FACT that was unknown at the time of Jesus, but that is common knowledge today, and accepted as a FACT; perhaps something Jesus revealed which was something ONLY the Son of God could know, since you believe he was present at the time of creation. Perhaps a TRUTH about how the World operates?
BTW, Jesus WAS demonstrably wrong on commonly-known facts of biology (eg men don't think with hearts, but with their brains: that was an easy one to clarify; he was wrong on bacteriology and germ theory of disease, since he poo-poohed handwashing and hygenic practices of eating with clean plates, pots, utensils, etc), and cosmology (there is no firmament, the Earth is NOT flat but spherical), etc.

TEC SAID- Well, the breaking up families is simply a matter of what WILL happen. The truth does divide... because some will cling to their lies and hate the truth and anyone IN the Truth (as Cain hated Abel... not because Abel did anything wrong, but because Abel did what was right while Cain did not do what was right... so he hated his brother).

Hebrews 11 offers Abel as a hero of faith, so if you actually understood that faith REQUIRES acting without confirmation, you'd realize that your comment above is incorrect: Cain didn't do what was right since he wasn't TOLD what was correct, and Abel ended up acting confidently as if he knew what he didn't know.

In that regard, you are in fact demonstrating faith quite well, since you are acting like you know stuff which you really don't actually know... As such, you're falling into a long line of bluffers and BSers who decieve others in the name of Jesus.

TEC said- Christ can help you see and hear the truth to the things that you do not understand... but you have to turn to Him and ask Him for eyes to see and ears to hear... the TRUTH... and that often means disregarding all the things that others have taught you about Him and God... and simply relying upon Him.

As usual, TECs offering simply a whole lotta hot air and meaningless slogans (deepity) which is devoid of any actual content or logic, AKA jaw-flapping.

Here's an appropriate video series posted by YouTube user Thunderf00t (who earned a PhD in science) called, "Why people laugh at creationists"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

Another user spliced the many videos together, into a single 4 hour long video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw

Adam