by Ron1968 142 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There are so many different religions of course. I have not studied them, but it seems that the one difference between the Chistian religion and others is that the Christian religion's God is alive and not dead like Mohammad or Buddah. Just an observation and thought...
Having a God that is alive is a big deal to me and why I wouldn't want part of most religions. The jw's seem wrong of course to me about a lot, but no worse or better than any organized religion.
Ron
Ron,
Muhammed and Buddah are not Gods of their religion (Islam believes in Allah - kinda like Jehovah. Buddists can be atheists). It's the same thing as saying that because Jesus is dead you wouldn't believe in Christianity. Also, the Hindu gods are not believed to be dead by Hindus.
rem
rem,
You said you understood evolution, and then in the next sentence you said evolution teaches that life just popped out of the mud.
The first thing you assert is a lie. I did not say evolution teaches that life just popped out of the mud. Here is what I said: "(fairy tales like "life just popped out of the mud?")" This statement was a response to the implication that creation was a fairy tale. It was not the very next sentence by any means. It was addressing a whole other is issue.
The word evolution is not there. I said that life just popping up out of the mud is a fairy tale. If you are so right you don't need to make up lies about me.
If you really understood evolution you would not have made the second statement. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about.
I do know what I am talking about. You are misrepresenting what I said.
You are confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis.
Once again, lets see what I said before you accused me of this: "There is no irony. Genesis says that God created man in his image. Abiogenesis basically states that life popped up out of the mud or "soup" (with a few lightning bolts and such)."
You lie. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about abiogenesis and never said I was referring to evolution.
Also, it is interesting that the bible teaches life popped out of the mud, not science.
The bible teaches God intended to and did create life. I did not say science teaches anything. I said abiogenesis states... Indeed, your statements are interesting.
Naturalistic beliefs are, by definition, rational. Beliefs that lack evidence are, by definition, irrational.
Abiogenesis is therefore an irrational belief. Abiogenesis is a naturalistic belief.
No, you insinuated some conspiracy of scientists holding back the supposed evidence for creation and hiding evidence against evolution, though you have not provided any evidence of this claim.
Teachers do not bring up the hurdles that evolutionary theory faces nor do they explain the significance of said hurdles.
I never said scientists were holding back evidence for creation or evidence against evolution. I specifically insinuated that scientists could manufacture and or misrepresent evidence to support evolution. You admitted that scientists had done what I insinuated they could or should do. Your deception and false accusations are getting boring.
It is common knowledge that there have been hoaxes in the past. Scientists were the ones that found them out and exposed them.
Scientists also conspired, perpetrated and touted them as evidence to support their theories. I never said scientists were useless in research and discovery. I am just skeptical to what they call evidence because the true nature of their evidence is not commonly disclosed in the classroom or the museums. That to me is deceptive. In addition the line between hoax and controversey is getting thinner. A self-deluded scientist would not be considered a fraud.
You probably don't realize how controversial such hoaxes were before they were exposed.
That doesn't change the fact that they happened. The desire to decieve is what is proven. It doesn't have to be outright fraud to be a deception. Putting a spin on what may be a genuine find to support an agenda is deceptive.
Science is self correcting. This is more than I can say for creationists who still publish the Paluxey Dinosaur Tracks as evidence of creation.
You act as though there are no deceptions being perpetrated by the scientific or educational community.
Like I said before, if you have something to back up your statement, then back it up. Unsubstantiated claims will not be glossed over.
You admitted my initial statement was true. I cite you as support for my statement.
1) You went to a crappy school
Doubt it. We had modern labs, textbooks, equipment and state endorsed educational videotapes.
2) You weren't paying attention.
4.0 GPAs. Top of my class.
Taking into consideration the state of our public schools these days, option 1 is quite probable.
So you support the removal of teaching abiogenesis and or evolution in public schools? The school I went to was fine. It was not a matter of better teachers or equipment. The curriculum was in error. As a matter of fact about 9 years ago there was a major controversey in my district concerning the manner in which evolution was being taught. It is still being taught though.
One thing to remember is that science teachers are not scientists.
If you have an M.S. in a hard science I think that qualifies you to some extent.
Science you learn in Highschool is often quite different and oversimplified when compared to what scientists are really publishing.
So then you think it is appropriate for scientists to treat high and jr high as Sunday School for the First Church of Evolutionary Biology.
They may find some interesting results or correlations that don't really mean much, but the press announces the findings as if they are fact: "Study shows baby carrots cause colon cancer!". It's a problem with how the information gets filtered down in our society.
I agree, but school is a mandatory contrived institution for learning that bends over backwards to eliminate or take a neutral stance on matters of faith in the curriculum. Evolution and abiogenesis currently get unquestioned endorsement without a mention of their hurdles.
Now evolution, on the other hand, is a fact (and a theory - the same as light and gravity).
Evolutionary theory: The diversity specializations in lifeforms is the result of random mutations in genetic code refined over generations by natural selection causing an ever (but not everytime) increasing number, complexity and usefullness of adaptations. aka: macroevolution. This is taught as a fact in schools and it is only theory.
You use the simple change in allele frequency to justify blending micro and macro evolution into one subject and label it as fact.
But like I said before, it seems you are confusing it with abiogenesis.
But like I said before, it seems you have yet to demonstrate that I ever did that.
Evolution is a completely different theory and is not inherently atheistic.
Oh, I see it is a theory once again.
Evolution works with or without a god.
I am aware of that.
If you believe in god, why is it so hard to imagine god using evolution to guide his creation?
Wouldn't you say that is an irrational thing to believe? Don't you say that is it hard for you to believe things that are irrational? Are you asking me or yourself?
Yes there are problems with evolutionary theory, just as there are problems with every theory.
Hmm... you said
"Now evolution, on the other hand, is a fact (and a theory - the same as light and gravity)."
So are you saying there are problems with the theory of light and gravity? I would agree with you that there are problems with evolutionary theory, but don't expect to hear it if you go to public school.
We don't just throw out relativity because it doesn't work in every single instance. We modify it and use if for things it's good for because it's useful.
How useful is it to teach macro-evolution as an absolute fact in public schools? Should we not throw out creation theory and teach that as well because that can be useful?
The same is true with evolution.
Again, you blend evolution into one subject and act like teaching the missing link is useful.
It's an extremely useful theory. It has aided in the curing of diseases and helps us understand the environment and conservation/breeding.
If you want to teach kids the change in allele frequency in context -- GO FOR IT.
Creation, as a theory, is not useful at all. It has not helped us learn anything useful about our universe. Useless theories are more likely to be incorrect.
Bullsh*t. WTF is SETI using.
I do respect humility as well. That includes knowing our limitations. You probably are smarter or more intelligent than me... I'm just average.
I'm shocked. Okay then, I take back what I said. However, I doubt you are average so don't BS me.
But intellect is not the same thing as being rational. It's a way of thinking... requiring evidence for belief.
I'm glad you realize the difference. Others on this board don't.
I can see your intellect, but you are not as rational as you think you are. That's all I'm trying to get you to realize.
I freely admit you are more rational than I am. I am a visionary not a scientist. I anticipate human, sociological and economic behavior. These are all irrational pursuits. It was the basis on which you challenge my rational that I protest. The belief in a creator is no less rational than the belief in abiogenesis. And if it is less rational, it is on a technical basis which contradicts philosophical ones.
Being overly rational is illogical.
I know of no modern specemins that would be considered hoaxes.
If they were considered hoaxes they would not be considered specemins. I agree.
The thing about science is that when something is found out to be a hoax, it is no longer used as evidence.
The effect on people's psyches is done. Most people accept what scientists tell them. If people are convinced finally by bogus evidence it doesn't matter that the evidence is no longer valid. Scientists still endorse the theory and the prevailing sentiment stays the same. It is like what happens with JWs: "NEW LIGHT!"
Which goes beyond even strong atheism, according to Cline's definition. A 'gnostic athiest' (yes I did pull this out of my butt, but it makes more sense than Cline's definition of 'strong atheist') is someone who is not an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist 'knows' that there is no god out there. A gnostic atheist denys the possibility of any god.
Sorry, you are wrong. Cline defines strong atheist and gnostic atheist as the same thing. You may have pulled the term out of your butt, but your butt is generating definitions of strong atheist these days. Cline said that a strong atheist denies the existence of AT LEAST some god or gods. That leaves the door wide open to the exclusion of all gods and is exactly what he meant. He was only trying to say that you don't have to deny all gods to be a strong atheist, however if you do you certainly are a strong atheist indeed.
I don't see how my sense of logic excludes philosophy.
This is going too get to deep for me. I'll let it go for now.
Logically inconsistent beings cannot exist.
The same standard of logical consistincy you attribute to no real being can be produced by a number of people on earth.
I don't have to be agnostic about square circles.
Not in this universe, you don't.
There could be one or many gods out there, who knows. But I know it can't be the Christian god - a god alleged to be omnicient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent is logically impossible.
I don't know where you got the idea that the Christian God was omnibenevolent.
I suppose if you want to get technical, you could say I'm a gnostic athiest when it comes to the Christian god, and an agnostic athiest when it comes to the concept of god in general, but why bother?
According to Austin Cline, you are a gnostic atheist. If you want to be an agnostic atheist alone you must consider the possibilty of the Christian God. I agree. Why bother with such a stupid label anyhow.
No, the Unicorn is not god. It just created the universe. God created the Unicorn.
That is a religion you have invented. It does not discredit the creation theory or make it irrational. All you have done is given your version of creation theory. If you wish to compare your religion to others you have done a good job. If you want to throw out creation theory you need to find a suitable analogy first.
Oh analogy challenged one. Ok, then. Substitute Invisible Zebra with Hindu gods. You've heard of the Vedas right? Those writings are more ancient than the bible.
It's a bad analogy and you know it. You only picked something so off the wall ridiculous because you wanted to compare it to belief in God. Of course people are going to disbelieve in invisible zebras by default. Who ever heard of such a thing?
Actually, how can there be a true default? No matter what, there will always be some bias, or past experience that influences the so called default one way or another. So anyone can easily say disbelieving in invisible zebras is the default, because by our society's standards, it's absolutely ludicrous. Complete objectivity is impossible because of outside influences we are either aware of or unaware of.
As for the Hindu analogy, I'm not going to answer, because I'm not very knowledgable about Hindu. If that was covered in the class I took I forgot.
Science is self correcting.
Don't the JWs use the same logic to justify the WTS, that they "make adjustments" and are therefore, correct?
So how can you possibly put all your faith in scientific knowledge, when it has had to correct itself, just like the WTS? How do you know the "evidence" out there now is correct?
Starscream,
Please don't accuse me of lying. If you really meant Abiogenesis, then it was my mistake. I apologize. Let's not escalate things unecessarily.
I'm personally agnostic about abiogenesis, but I can definitely imagine life starting from naturalistic processes. I can also imagine a god creating the spark of life. I just don't see any evidence for god or gods and I realize that positing a god leads to an infinite regress problem.
You still have not backed up your claim (or is that an insinuation) that scientists are actively deceiving the public. Also, you ignore clear evidence of Creationists doing exactly what you condemn scientists of doing today.
I do not support the removal of abiogenesis or evolution in public schools. Evolution is a valid, useful theory. Abiogenesis is an interesting group of theories that don't have near the weight of evolution, but just a string theory is new and interesting I don't see the need to take it out of any curriculum as something on the horizon.
Please elaborate on Seti and the usefulnes of creation theory. I have Seti@home running on my computer and I've not read anything about creation theory on their website.
You seem to accept micro-evolution and reject macro-evolution. This is a very technical topic and may be better suited for another thread.
Believing in god-assisted evolution is, indeed irrational since there is no evidence of said being. At least it's an irrational belief that is in harmony with the rest of science, though. It's one thing to be on the par of a flat earther, it's another thing to have beliefs in harmony with nature. There's nothing inherently evil about irrational beliefs, they're just not for me personally.
I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying regarding Strong Atheism vs. Gnostic Athiesm. In one sentence you seem to be disagreeing with me and in the other, if I'm reading carefully enough, you are agreeing with my definition. Yes, Cline's definition of strong atheism says the denial of AT LEAST some gods. That's a big difference than denying the possiblity of ANY gods (gnostic atheism). That means that it's much easier to be a strong atheist than a gnostic atheist. Not many people deny every conceivable god. That is an irrational stance. Most atheists (that I know, at least) are in the agnostic camp. According to Cline's flawed definition, they are all strong athiests because it is nearly impossible not to deny at least one or some gods. I would suspect that most agnostic atheists would object to being called strong atheists.
What it comes down to is this: If, when you personally were an atheist, you truly believed that there was evidence that showed any gods could not exist, then that was an irrational belief.
If instead you believed that certain definitions of god (and yes, the Christian god is claimed to be omnibenevolent by many christians, though I'm not sure that that is a biblical teaching) are a logical impossibility, but there is a possibility (however low) of some type of god or gods existing out there, then that is a rational belief.
That's all I was getting at with that.
That is a religion you have invented. It does not discredit the creation theory or make it irrational. All you have done is given your version of creation theory. If you wish to compare your religion to others you have done a good job. If you want to throw out creation theory you need to find a suitable analogy first.
No, the analogy shows that the Christian creation theory is no more rational than the one I just invented. And you cannot prove otherwise.
rem
Hamster,
What you've just done is commited the logical fallacy of special pleading. You accept that the default is non-belief for invisible zebras and other extraordinary claims, but refuse to apply the same standard to belief in god or gods. The very fact that you don't, by default, believe in Vishnu proves my point.
Here is some information of the logica fallacy of special pleading. Please look at this site as it has a list of other logical fallacies. These are traps that are easy to fall into and hinder critical thinking:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
rem
What you've just done is commited the logical fallacy of special pleading. You accept that the default is non-belief for invisible zebras and other extraordinary claims, but refuse to apply the same standard to belief in god or gods. The very fact that you don't, by default, believe in Vishnu proves my point.
And you put words in my mouth. If you'll look more closely at my post, you'll see it was designed to prove that the idea of a "default" is ridiculous.
Oxnard, I totally agree.Yet, confronted with a lack of evidence it would seem the default position would be to suspend belief, hence agnosticism is the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint.Oh please.... How is suspending belief the default position? This is just a cheap cop out to try to prove that atheists are intellectually superior to theists.The only "out" I see here is to emphasize "it would seem..." In that case, as a personal opinion, fine. Otherwise, to simply assert that agnosticism is "the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint" is just plain and simple crap. Who in heaven or hell or on earth has such insight and authority as to say what my "default position" should be?
Craig No. From a purely logical and scientific standpoint, agnosticism is the default position. There is no getting around that. Let me explain. There is no definitive proof for God's existence or non-existence, even many theists will admit this. That being said, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint, there must be a suspension of belief in anything that hasn't been proven or disproven. Think about the possibility of intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Is there any proof? No, not yet. Can anyone say they have proof we are the only life forms in the universe? Again, no. Now, some scientists have opinions on the matter -- leaning one way or the other -- but they will not state definitively that it is a guarantee that aliens do or do not exist. Now, replace "aliens" or "intelligent life" with the word God. The exact same could be said verbatim. Again, this is from a scientific point of view, not one one's personal inclinations are, whether based on emotion or reason. The problem is that most theists, especially of the fundy-Christian variety, will say that they have PROOF that God (their God!) exists. The rational person, even if they lean towards theism, will not be so bold. I sometimes consider myself an agnostic with theistic inclinations, but I cannot say God exists for a fact. So, in short, my statement wasn't "plain and simple crap." Actually, to say that it was such is. Bradley
Hamster,
If the concept of non-belief as default is so ridiculous, perhaps you can articulate why. Are there certain things that are believed by default and certain things that are not? Do we believe in the following things by default?
france
hamburgers
gnomes
Santa Claus
god
igloos
internet
rem
