MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Yes, because I believe in faith itself, kinda like studying knowledge.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
sounds like the flip side of the coin.....According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?
It would, but since when are JWs allowed to be open minded without the risk of being shunned if they come to differing conclusions to their JW comrades? In other words your entire post is probably just more JW hypocrisy
What i’m saying is that human perspectives naturally vary, it takes dishonesty to agree to unfounded dogma for the sake of ensuring a pseudoscientific level of unity.I don't see how being united in the same faith based on the Bible is a sign of hypocrisy.
Or are you saying that discord, strife and disagreement are a measure of honesty?
1cor 1:10
Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of though.
JWs are not allowed to be open minded? That's a strange statement.What i’m saying is that human perspectives naturally vary, it takes dishonesty to agree to unfounded dogma for the sake of ensuring a pseudoscientific level of unity.
In other words if we all agreed the earth was flat that wouldn’t make us correct, so we have to be free to hold differing ideas about reality without coercive attempts such as shunning to allow science to progress unhindered.
To tie this all back to my point which you missed, JWs are not allowed to be open minded (or they run the risk of being shunned), which is why it is hypocrisy to call for open mindedness when you are completely close minded on all your core doctrines for fear of loss of your family and social circle.
According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?
According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?
According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?
That’s not what I said at allYou seem to want them to be gullible, and accept what people believe, just because it is the accepted belief in a community.
Shunning won’t work on everybody, but I bet it works on many people holding them prisoner mentally.They are open minded, as is evident by the fact that they decide if they want to remain a JW or not.
No one is holding them prisoner, mentally or physically.
You are victim blaming here, they shouldn’t be put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs.If one does not belief something, a religious group believes, and still wants to be a part of the group because their family belongs to it, how would you describe that? Isn't that weakness?
That’s whataboutery on your part. If they are sometimes abused by non-believers (which is wrong) that doesn’t give believers an excuse to behave coercively.I mean, when they become a JW, they do so despite family opposition. In fact, in some cases, it's so bad, their family reject them, oppose them, and even verbally and physically abuse them.
No, human weakness exists. Some people cave in to peer pressure.So why would a JW be afraid to leave family members if they reject JWs teachings?
Do you see how that just makes no sense whatsoever?
Actually I bet that shunning is rare in the scientific community. So possibly a stretch to say they lost their community of science colleagues. They may have lost teaching positions but it would be rare for them to lose their job as taxi drivers for not believing in evolution.Others too, have carefully considered the facts, and reject dogma, even though they lost their community of science colleges and even their former job.
Jesus didn’t teach evolution because people didn’t have knowledge of it back in those days. If Jesus was as intelligent and truthful as He is cracked up to be I have no doubt that upon being adequately informed of evolutionary theory He would accept it as the most reasonable theory to explain the known evidence.So besides open mindedness, it's also about courage - courage to reject what most people believe, if you find it is wrong.
Wasn't that the way Jesus was?
Do you think Jesus would accept evolution theory? LOL.
You did not say it, nor did you have to.That’s not what I said at all
What does that mean. Lost me there.Shunning won’t work on everybody, but I bet it works on many people holding them prisoner mentally.
This is making absolutely no sense to me.You are victim blaming here, they shouldn’t be put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs.
Put in a position where they face the loss of their family and friends for the sake of their scientific beliefs?
Trust me. There is no attempt on believers part to use any action of anyone, as an excuse to behave like them.That’s whataboutery on your part. If they are sometimes abused by non-believers (which is wrong) that doesn’t give believers an excuse to behave coercively.
Then you are saying everyone is courageous. That's not true. Human weakness exists.No, human weakness exists. Some people cave in to peer pressure.
I am not in the scientific community, but just go on line and you will find it is documented that it has happened and there is nothing that shows things have changed.Actually I bet that shunning is rare in the scientific community. So possibly a stretch to say they lost their community of science colleagues. They may have lost teaching positions but it would be rare for them to lose their job as taxi drivers for not believing in evolution.
What? No Jesus taught the truth. If evolution were a fact Jesus would teach it.Jesus didn’t teach evolution because people didn’t have knowledge of it back in those days. If Jesus was as intelligent and truthful as He is cracked up to be I have no doubt that upon being adequately informed of evolutionary theory He would accept it as the most reasonable theory to explain the known evidence.
You got me on the second part - as a liberal I couldn’t care less what Baha’u’llah said if it were demonstrably false.Why is this giving you trouble. I think it is because of your view of JWs. It has nothing to do with reason. If Bahaullah said it, I am sure you would have no problem with Bahais practicing it... unless you couldn't care less what Bahaullah said.
I don’t think Jesus is *waiting* to learn anything, in the spirit world He is capable of learning from those who have greater knowledge than He does.What? No Jesus taught the truth. If evolution were a fact Jesus would teach it.
Am I hearing you right? This is truly a marvel.
Do you think Jesus is waiting for people to teach him what is true? Amazing!
Okay. Thanks for that.You got me on the second part - as a liberal I couldn’t care less what Baha’u’llah said if it were demonstrably false.
You've got me curious as to whom you believe are those with greater knowledge than Jesus has.I don’t think Jesus is *waiting* to learn anything, in the spirit world He is capable of learning from those who have greater knowledge than He does.
Darwin, Einstein, why i’d even wager RF’s @Polymath257 has more knowledge of the physical world than Jesus by leaps and boundsOkay. Thanks for that.
You've got me curious as to whom you believe are those with greater knowledge than Jesus has.
Thanks for the laugh, Dan.Darwin, Einstein, why i’d even wager RF’s @Polymath257 has more knowledge of the physical world than Jesus by leaps and bounds
To tie this all back to my point which you missed, JWs are not allowed to be open minded (or they run the risk of being shunned), which is why it is hypocrisy to call for open mindedness when you are completely close minded on all your core doctrines for fear of loss of your family and social circle.
I think that disfellowshipping people for apostasy could be a sign that shunning is part of JW’s social makeup to force unity.It is also an incorrect assumption on your part that shunning is a part of JW’s social makeup and that it is used to force unity amongst them.
Only dis-fellowshipped members are “shunned” and this is done in accord with Bible guidelines to those that unrepentedly commit serious wrongdoing.
Science is getting there. They are not as unintelligible as a God.but hey....we'll just cal It...…
dark energy
dark matter
Even a high school graduate knows more than who came."... Fear ye God and follow not your idle fancies and corrupt imaginings, but rather follow Him Who is come unto you invested with undeniable knowledge and unshakeable certitude..."