Posts by Mephis

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Mephis

There is only a "controversy" with those that won't accept facts. The existence of young dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells, DNA etc. is well documented.

The dimwit who wrote that article somehow has managed to confuse 10,000 years and 1.5 million years. The article in Nature covering the study is here: http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

If a creationist needs to lie (and yes, that is a lie) about something as simple as a scientific paper he's quoting then it's pretty clear that the discussion is not a scientific one. The dinosaur DNA idea is widely disputed - I know, socially, people who work with remains much more recent than that and who are at the cutting edge of the field. We're only just about able to pull out Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA from a couple of hundred thousand years ago. So there's no controversy about something which hasn't passed peer review studies. Collagen and red blood cells, if not contamination, then that's still being kicked about to see if it stands up.

Science isn't a religion. You disprove a major theory, you get tenure and a Nobel prize and your name goes into history. You disprove a religion's foundational beliefs and all the believers get upset and start looking for pitchforks and torches.

21

This idiot just embarrasses me.

by joe134cd in

yup a mentally diseased apostate.. http://youtu.be/e7qmypu7mxo.

Mephis

Has anyone here been 'woken up' by direct activism like that guy does? I know that sort of thing didn't have any part to play in me coming out, if anything it just cemented in a stereotype of apostates even many years after I'd left. But I wonder if there are those who it does work for?

67

Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?

by paul from cleveland in

is it just me?

Mephis

No amount of copy and paste about our DNA or common ancestor and whatever which change the fact in a relatively short period of time or milli-second in evolutionary terms can explain who one species went from cave paintings to putting a man on the moon.

In fairness, that's a history question rather than a biology one once the fundamentals of speech and toolmaking are in place.

475

What is the alternative to JW?

by Formerbrother in

i mean this with all due respect, i would like to hear from genuine people who think jw have it wrong and then what is the truth?.

im not talking about silly little quibbles here and there.. is jehovah real?

the the bible is word?

Mephis

Sounds like an excuse to me, I still say either believe all the Bible or non of it.
At least the JWs are the only ones who believe all of it.
Others say they do, but when it comes to men laying with men, or the blood issue, then that is what sorts the true religion from the false.

All the bible. Ok. Here's Jehovah (Yahweh) in action. This is the true religion, right?

The morality of the divine patron can seem very foreign to modern sensibilities. For example, since ancient Near Eastern society was patriarchal, treating women as subordinate to men, it follows logically that the divine patron also treated women this way. A biblical example illustrates the point. In 2 Samuel 11–12, King David covets another man’s wife, takes her, and later kills the husband when the woman becomes pregnant. According to the story, the patron god, Yahweh, is angry, but not because David has raped and murdered. Yahweh expresses disgust that David has taken the wrong man’s wife, for he, Yahweh, is eager to give David the wives of other men if David desires them (12:7b–8). As punishment for David’s sin, the woman’s child shall die and another man shall rape several of David’s other wives (12:9–14). The moral values of Canaanite culture are clearly on display in this tale: the divine patron punishes a man by killing a child and orchestrating the rape of other women. The divine patron protects the property of males by violating or destroying the property of other males. Religious morality is a by-product of social prejudices.

Kurt Noll. http://people.brandonu.ca/nollk/canaanite-religion/

Don't give blood to save someone's life, because that makes him sad and he'll kill you. Only rape the right women (!!!), or he'll be sad and have your wives raped and kill children. That's the god JWs want to worship. Forgive me for not giving a damn what he says about consensual sex between adults.

3

for those still interested in bible discussion check out this website

by nowwhat? in

http://www.discussthetruth.com/.

it's an objective forum in association with beroean pickets.

for those like me who are fed up with the organization but still believe in gods word.. snarky comments to follow!

Mephis

No snark here. Good luck with it and hope it helps people with the leaving process.

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

Mephis

Is there an explanation for Judah's existence that completely sidesteps Solomon and David? How about that Temple attributed supposedly to the clan?

There's a fair bit of theory to explain the archaeological evidence without needing biblical David. Lot of stuff published in 80s and early 90s comes from that angle. A King Arthur type figure for later scribes, or you could even do the links to Horsa and Hengist who similarly stand on that boundary between being plausibly based on historical figures and full on mythological founding fathers. I can't think of anything current which totally dismisses the bible stories, especially not with the House of David evidence now. Something seems to have happened in the hills which could plausibly be explained by a centralised power arising. 'If not the biblical David, another man of the same name' kind of thing.

With the temple, the evidence is for numerous smaller 'shrines' around Israel even until, say, Josiah's time. eg references to Yahweh of X (not Jerusalem) have been found which kind of hints towards a less centralised religion than the picture painted by the bible stories So I would wonder about how far a single 'temple' even in Jerusalem really was the main focus for Israelite worship and how much is actually later creative interpretation of history by writers. Against that, if there were a new centralised state arising in the hills then an attempt to centralise a religion/cult would also make sense as something which would happen around the same time. Or at least an attempt to have a major new cult site act as a focus. Herding cats one suspects.

9

Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped

by Crazyguy in

recently there is a royal bulla that was found in jerusalem, that of the judean king hezekiah on it was two egyptian ankhs and a wings sun disk.

there have been other artifacts found with that of the egyptian scarab beatle which relates to sun worship.

so does the bible give any clues to the god of the jews?.

Mephis

Thing with Hezekiah is that though he's a 'good king', it's Josiah who goes full Yahweh on the worship of other gods. There's room to drive a pantheon of gods through the holes left around Hezekiah clearing out the temple.

The problem with the Egyptian link is that Palestine was, on and off, Egypt's playground. That there was a significant cultural presence is already known. But it doesn't seem to have played a direct role in the development of Yahweh. There's no evidence to support the Egypt > Yahweh idea. The scripture from 2 Chron. isn't really persuasive to me at all. Hezekiah may not even have been a Yahweh worshipper, and the seal itself doesn't make the link. The origins of Yahweh, to my mind, seem to follow the route all the way back to the Canaanite pantheon. (Frank Moore Cross' work still stands up.) I think there's ample evidence for Egyptian gods being worshipped in Canaan, Solomon's wife is the biblical reflection of it I guess. Maybe there were periods when they were the main culty thing to do.

32

was Darwin an atheist?

by Ruby456 in

jw
friends

asking this q because my own feeling about this is that he probably believed in god but his evolutionary thesis is used to support atheism.

how come?

Mephis

Just one from Einstein. A little girl wrote to him asking him whether scientists pray. His response to her:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/05/dear-einstein-do-scientists-pray.html

32

was Darwin an atheist?

by Ruby456 in

jw
friends

asking this q because my own feeling about this is that he probably believed in god but his evolutionary thesis is used to support atheism.

how come?

Mephis

I agree there's no inherent conflict between belief and knowledge, but I suppose ultimately it's how those beliefs are framed. A deist conception of a 'starter' god can happily sit alongside things which cause issues for other ways to imagine god. Deist god triggered the big bang and then walked away. The absent parent par excellence. But sure. It only becomes a problem should we ever demonstrate that there is no need for that initial ignition. And of course, 'god' as the answer does have the problem of just moving the question to 'so how did god begin?'.

32

was Darwin an atheist?

by Ruby456 in

jw
friends

asking this q because my own feeling about this is that he probably believed in god but his evolutionary thesis is used to support atheism.

how come?

Mephis

I'm agnostic in the general sense because I can entertain the idea of a being somewhere in the universe of such vast power that humans would label it 'god'. If there were such a being, I've seen no evidence for it playing a role in human development or society so one may as well deal with that absence and crack on with things. If there's a belief system which comes closest to mine, it's probably something like humanism. Agnosticism stresses the knowledge element, so proof and evidence over belief. There is a point where it becomes de facto atheism. They're not the same terms, but they're not exclusive either.