JW looking clarity followup

[Won2blv]

To your first point, my reasoning is that even if god did prove his existence it would not make a difference to those that believe he is immoral or sadistic. And so that is another debate as to whether or not he is, but its faulty reasoning against his existence, or non existence.

I am not aware of any atheist who uses "I wouldn't serve that god" as a reason for or against the existence of any god.  It is simply a reply to the question you posed, which I think that theists often ask in order to show that the atheist is simply a rebellious believer.  I don't see what difference it makes how I answer that question, since no one has been able to produce a single god.

And as far as your second point, Raymond Franz had all the right in the world to believe in and preach what he wanted. We believe that every human does have that right. But simply, no, you can't be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you don't believe in what they do.

I think you missed the point: Jehovah's Witnesses do not simply stop identifying such a person as a member.  They demand that the rest of the membership --including family members and close friends-- cease all communication with the person outside of specific family or business dealings, which they encourage be kept to a minimum.  Those who do not follow this command risk being removed as well, and shunned the same way.  It is not an attempt to keep the organization free of troublemakers, as much as it is an attempt to intimidate the membership and keep them in line.

Raymond Franz preached something that didn't jive with what Jehovah's Witnesses believed.

Slight (but important) correction: Franz only differed on a few points of view, and he did not preach these.  He discussed them with one or two fellow JWs, and those were also removed from the organization in spite of their protests that they had not agreed with his views.  The organization made it clear that even the perception of independent thinking was to be dealt with very severely.  Surely you can see how this differs from your Starbucks example?

I really appreciate your point of view on this... all I am saying concerning the first thing is this, you can use the perceived misbehaving of god as a proof as to his non existence. Its just a faulty reasoning. 

To the second point, the shunning practice is scriptural. Its a lot harder to stomach when you don't believe in the veracity of scriptures but Ray Franz did believe in them. Clearly his views were not so minor that he and others left because of them. Yes, they left. They could have "conformed" and continued to be witnesses and kept their views to themselves but they were important enough that they couldn't. And you only know one side of that story. I'm sure anyone would agree that a person who feels spurned usually doesn't come across things in the most unbiased of ways. I personally have found this when talking to ex-mormons or ex-catholics etc