Posts by AlmostAtheist

47

How many left the organization have become Atheist?

by icyestrm in

jw
friends

how many have become atheist after leaving the organization?

AlmostAtheist

*raises hand* Atheist here.

Interestingly, I was poking about on the web one day trying to find information about Christian Scientists and happened upon a forum. The forum title page said something to the effect, "This is NOT yet another CS-turned-atheist forum. We are all Christians that have turned from following men to following Christ."

From that and other comments I've seen, it seems one way to fling a person into atheism is to first wind him up tightly in cult.

Not that "cults make atheist", but that having been in a cult makes you look at religion a bit deeper and require a bit more proof from any alleged god that mentions how great it would be to worship him.

Dave

10

The Simpsons Movie -- Have you seen it?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

hey all, .

zach and i went to see the new simpsons movie today.

it was absolutely hilarious -- non-stop from start to finish.

AlmostAtheist

Hey All,

Zach and I went to see the new Simpsons Movie today. It was absolutely hilarious -- non-stop from start to finish. I couldn't have been more impressed; and keep in mind that I've been looking forward to this for months now! To be in such anticipation and to be so delighted as a reward -- there just aren't words.

Sometimes the transition from TV to movie is awkward. You're left feeling like they should've just spent the time on a few new episodes for TV and left it at that. Not this one. It was as close to perfect as a movie could be. I couldn't more highly recommend it. You owe it to yourself, to Matt Groening, to the very fabric of reality to go see it!

Dave

56

BirthdaysSimple Deconstruction of the JW Rationale

by AuldSoul in

to deconstruct the jw rationale surrounding birthdays, a few simple guidelines should be followed.. (1): don't waste any energy trying to convince a jw that birthdays are not pagan, if they suggest that, readily agree.

whether or not the celebrations are pagan turns out to be a non-issue that distracts from the main point.. (2): stay focused on the fact that jws disfellowship people for celebrating birthdays.. (3): stress the point that there should always be clear scriptural reason for disfellowshipping someone.

ask them often throughout the discussion whether this is the case, get them to reinforce this need to themselves.. (4): remember, the first goal is deconstructing their rationale, not giving them a new rationale, not convincing them that celebrating birthdays is a good thing.. once you have these well in mind, the deconstruction can begin.. jw rationale, in brief:.

AlmostAtheist

In addition, forbidding birthdays cuts you off from one of the traditional times to get together with family. Combine this with forbidding holidays, and you find that you spend less and less time with your "worldly" relatives. They, of course, think it's crap and tell you so -- and in so doing drive a wedge between you and your non-JW family even more.

I don't know if this is by design, or just a happy coincidence for the Watchtower. But it certainly plays in their favor.

For more on their birthday doctrine and why it's bunk: http://www.thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html

AuldSoul, good work on this. One question -- can you provide any references for the idea that they disfellowship over celebrating birthdays? I'm sure they can manage to bootstrap you up to apostasy on it if they want to, but have they ever put anything in print about it?

Dave

37

A Bible Question, please comment

by restrangled in

there will have to be assumptions involved here.....that god exists, the bible is the word of god and creation is as stated in genesis, etc.

etc.. in the old testament, god seemed pretty straight forward, let certain people know (and not by osmosis) his intent.

backed certain kings, and showed power through physical occurrences over and over again.. along comes his son, who died for the entire race as a ransom for adam's sin.

AlmostAtheist

Does the Bible really show that God was straightforward with mankind?

He talked directly to Moses, but not to Joe Jew. Joe could see the light at the temple, but he wasn't allowed to go to where the light was shining from, so he kinda had to take their word for what was causing it.

Noah got instructions from God, but his family never had contact with Him. Did they hear the pronouncement from God after the rainbow bit? I think so, I can't recall. But their children didn't.

Reading the Bible and seeing miracles on every page is sort of like watching Star Trek and thinking, "Man, those crazy transporters are ALWAYS going on the blink!" Truth is, the transporters work 99.99% of the time. But it doesn't make for much of a story. So you only get the "good stuff" recorded.

I agree that there's more activity from God recorded in the Bible than the average believer would say he sees today. But I think the "good stuff" of those 4,000 years being all bunched together might make it seem like much more activity than it's really meant to portray.

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

I stated what we were taught all through school, namely, that man evolved from monkeys

A high school biology course isn't going to go into much depth. It couldn't. Though I doubt the phrase, "man evolved from monkeys" was actually used, I could easily believe that impression was given.

Monkeys of today are ALSO evolved. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past, and both species have evolved from that into what they are today. Humans are not "highly evolved monkeys". Monkeys are not "less evolved humans". Both are equally evolved.

(That we're more closely related to chimpanzees than to monkeys is probably not material to the "man from monkey" question, in my opinion.)

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

Warlock,

Here is a list of some hominid fossils that have been found and the species that have been identified from them.

Fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Species: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

These are both linked from this page containing more information about human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

As Terry mentioned, these aren't "truths", just evidence that points to a reasonable conclusion.

And as someone by now must have mentioned, accepting evolution doesn't in any way mean rejecting God. Nor does rejecting God necessarily mean accepting evolution. They are entirely separate subjects.

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

>>Things aren't either completely True or completely False based on evidence like a light switch marked "on" or "off". Truth and evidence are like a scale from 1 to 100.

So true. We're talking more about what's "likely" than what's "true."

>>I want to see those transitional species that are between monkey and man. The "they disappeared" excuse just won't cut it.

It's not quite accurate to say they "disappeared". They died off, but they left evidence of their existence.

>>They were supposed to be the superior species and they are nowhere to be found.

This is also not black and white, this "survival of the fittest" stuff. It really means "survival of the fittest in their environment at present". But environments change, sometimes rapidly. Competition changes. Think about automobiles. Could you have sold a hybrid car in 1965? If it wasn't huge and fast, nobody was interested. That environment has changed, so what would have been an inferior car is now a superior one.

The environment can change much more quickly than creatures can adapt to it. And if two different creatures are competing for the same resources in the same area (as two or more types of pre-humans would be), it's understandable that one type could win out over the other. It wouldn't have to be that way, but it's a believable scenario.

>>the superior transitional species dying off and the inferior species surviving, namely monkeys.

Monkeys have a different environment than humans. Humans have adapted to their environment, and monkeys to theirs. Remember when I said that humans aren't more "highly evolved" than other creatures? Humans arent "superior" to monkeys, we're just better adapted to OUR environment. (If you pit a human against a monkey in a living-in-the-trees contest, the monkey would surely prove superior.)

>>You see this doesn't make sense, because a brown haired 5ft tall person can quite happily mate with a 6ft tall blond person and produce beautiful babies that have charachteristics of both.

The poster that made this point was talking about "species" being an arbitrary line that we humans have drawn between animals. The point was that we could've drawn that line anywhere we wanted. We chose to draw it based on mating. Two types of creatures that can't (or won't) mate are called two different species, but that's just our label for them.

>>If we have evolved and adapted to our environment, why are we all still living together doing our respective jobs?

I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase it for me?

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

>>There is this giant leap in every area when you compare man to monkey, and if we did come from monkeys and we are just a higher form of monkey, where are these "transitional" species that lead from them to us?

They've all died off. (Or so we assume -- "Bigfoot", anyone? ;-) )

Our extinct ancestors and those that branched off of our same tree have left fossils and other evidence of their existence.

You aren't going to see one species turning into another before your eyes, let alone a fish turn into a bird. But then, you aren't going to see the Grand Canyon carved out over a weekend, either. We can't see it happen, but we can piece together the evidence available and see how it happened.

You can find these evidences and why they are considered our ancestors all over the web. If you have any trouble locating them, please let me know and I'll dig something up.

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

>>I appriciate your illustration, but both the best and worst sighted birds remain birds throughout this whole process.

In the very last iteration of change (getting slightly better sight), that's true. But what if the poor-sighted population finds that life on the ground is better for them? They can't spot their food before the better-sighted ones do, so they just stay on the ground and grab whatever's handy. They would all be one type of bird at first, just some going to the ground more often. But those on the ground would mate with each other, and those in the trees would mate with each other. More and more, the ground dwellers would stay there. They would develop stronger legs, more vicious beaks (for defense), and be more aggressive. (Maybe).

In time, these would become two different species. Granted, they're still birds. But they've changed. How many more changes would it take before the bird wasn't a bird in any accepted sense?

In "getting" evolution, the easy part is seeing the small changes, like eye-sight. The hard part is understanding that these small changes can accumulate until the thing you end up with is almost nothing like the thing you started with. Genetics may end up the only clue to tie one to the other.

Natural selection is driven by the environment. Split a population over two different environments and they can't help but adapt to them. Split again, and again... the changes add up.

Dave

125

?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions in

and please dont give me links to read.

i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.

many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?

AlmostAtheist

From the primordial "soup" came life, and from the most simple one celled organism which evolved over millions of years, came every animal on earth, culminating in man.

So when I speak of "evolution", this is what I mean, and I sure don't believe that.

That's actually two different things. The first is the idea that life sprang from non-life. The discussions around that are often referred to as "abiogenesis". (To be followed, no doubt, by "abioexodus", "abioleviticus", and so forth...)

There is no "Theory of Abiogenesis", like our "Theory of Evolution". We have tons of facts and evidence to develop and support evolution, but there's precious little to work with on beginning-of-life. Certainly nothing that would allow anyone to declare it a theory in the scientific sense.

Once life exists (or at least an object that can replicate itself), then evolution can happen.

and I sure don't believe that.

Let me ask you, if a bird's food supply depended largely on his eyesight, would you agree that the birds with the best eyesight would find the best food? And if the environment was rather short of food, it follows that the best-sighted ones would survive and the worst-sighted ones would die.

The remaining birds would collectively have better eyesight than the population prior to the starvings, agreed?

And these would mate and produce offspring that ALSO had better eyesight than the pre-starved population, agreed?

That is evolution. You've just witnessed one of the bazillion steps necessary to turn primordial-ooze-replicators into well-visioned-birds.

(I'm guessing it's that last point on which you and I might not agree! :-) )

Dave