As a side note ExBethel, you may want to watch some of the debates between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, not just for content but as a nice example of how civilized discourse and debate is done. Their debates are definitely germane to the topic(s) of this thread.
Big Dog
JoinedPosts by Big Dog
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
I have to agree with Cofty on this point. That's a membership in a club whose annual dues are far too high. You can find that sort of camaraderie and brotherhood in far more healthy environments. I've often felt that people that stay in when they are as you describe are more akin to someone displaying battered spouse syndrome. They have been abused for so long they begin to think they deserve it and can't imagine breaking away from their oppressor.
-
3
Dan Brown to George Orwell. What would you do?
by Slidin Fast inan artis in the uk pulped 6800 copies of the da vinci code, reconstituted the paper, and reprinted as 1984 by orwell as above.
i for one applaud the idea.
what use for the publications would you find?.
-
-
Big Dog
Toilet paper
-
13
Confirmation that religion is dying.
by Phizzy inthis is from a site called "atheist republic" :.
" the phenomenon of "nones" — individuals who claim no religious affiliation — is rapidly reshaping america's religious landscape.
recent surveys by the associated press-norc center for public affairs research indicate that 30% of u.s. adults identify as nonreligious.
-
-
Big Dog
I think many of the nones simply don't think about it most of the time and only when questioned do they have to think about how they identify. Secularism has been on the rise for decades and with the rollback of religious themed activities in the schools and in popular culture it just isn't on most people's screen on a daily basis. Most are thinking about work, kids, bills, vacations, etc and religion or spirituality isn't even an afterthought.
I was talking to a young boy a couple of houses down and he had no idea what Easter was. I asked if they did anything in school for easter and he said no. His parents don't go to any church but have said they are believers. Religion, at least here in the states, has just largely fallen out of the general consciousness of the populace, especially those under say 30.
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
I can't say that I have had your experience with Ex-B so I can't speak to that.
I guess I just try to remember where we all came from and really try to have patience as much as possible but I agree, there are limits.
Even though I left home as soon as I could and attended college it still amazed me at how long it took me to deprogram myself completely. Some people never get there.
I would say at this point maybe a policy of not engaging and moving on to more rewarding discussions might be in order.
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
I wasn't applying the monkey typewriter quote to natural selection, if I was unclear about that it's because this is a forum, not a peer reviewed paper I am working on to submit for publication. I take some liberties with my review of what I write. I was speaking in general terms of the universe itself and all of the incredible chain of events that had to occur from the big bang to arrive at me sitting here typing away if there was no supernatural component. The quote was aimed at why isn't that (fill in the blank) possible?
If we are talking about the natural selection portion of evolution then no, natural selection is not random. However, if we are discussing evolution in general, my understanding, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong is that evolution has at least three distinct parts. First you have the generation of mutations which is thought to be a random process with some qualifications. The next part is random drift, more or less a roll of the dice that decides which changes are kept and which are lost. This is caused by accidental or environmental events and many mutations are lost. The random effects of drift can overwhelm natural selection in small breeding populations and many mutations are discarded. The third part, natural selection, preserves the beneficial changes and mutations and is not random.
Evolutionary theory is certainly not my area of expertise, but I've had enough crossover in my education to understand the fundamentals that evolution is at least partially random, and the monkey typewriter quote would be applicable in part at least to the process.
I think it's wonderful that Ex-B has come far enough to at least ask some questions and draw some conclusions and exit a mind controlling cult. My word that's enough accomplishment that I want to throw a party. I would submit that at this point asking Ex-B if he is willing to examine any of his conclusions and be open to examining them would be the next step. Small steps sometimes are all we can manage after a life of indoctrination and misinformation. If he is not, then I would bid him a good day and wish him the best in the new clarity he has found.
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
Once I was old enough and began learning about evolutionary theory and fossil records and so forth, I realized that most people had what I call the "I Dream of Jeannie" idea of creation. That God nodded his head, and everything sprang into existence fully formed and as we see it. I wondered if perhaps not, perhaps God was the master chemist, biologist, physicist, engineer, etc. Given the observable rules and certain order (like the Golden Ratio) couldn't evolution have been just another tool that was used to create life with a nudge here or there in the way a chemist will manipulate his chemical mix to get the reaction that he's after? Could it be at a certain point when evolution had produced homo sapiens that there was another nudge in the form of whatever people wanted to call it, soul, divinity etc? Hmm, an interesting theory. Most faiths (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) grant that Genesis is allegorical and not meant as a historical record, the fundamentalists of which include the JW's are lagging behind on that one.
Or perhaps not, it is all percentages. The old give a thousand monkeys typewriters and a couple hundred thousand years and one of them will produce the works of Shakespeare. That is certainly possible as well. Even the Catholic church acknowledges evolution is a fact which I think is pretty enlightened for them. I love science, it has answered a lot of questions about biology and the world and universe around us, but I am reminded by a note on my medication that says "the exact mechanism that this drug uses are still not understood" that we still don't have it all figured out and the ratio of what we know for certain vs. what we don't is still heavily weighted against us.
Civil discourse and discussion are the way to go forward. I try to eschew dogmatism in any of its forms, I've seen theists and scientists have to recant ideas that were presented as fact too many times. Put the ideas out there, discuss and dissect them and see how they hold up but do it with respect and kindness. Educate, don't annihilate each other as one of my favorite professors used to like to say.
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
ExBethel, I think its great that you are asking these questions and trying to sort things out in your mind. In my opinion the science vs. religion debate is just another version of the fighting between religions because in the end no one really knows either way how it all began and the exact process by which we got here.
A Catholic Priest at a lecture at Notre Dame once said that good science and good religion are complimentary not contradictory. I found that statement to be very interesting. Just like with TonusOH's comment about morality being flexible and the problem coming from thinking in black and white and absolutes. That's the problem with the whole science vs. religion debate in my opinion, why does it have to be either or? At least until one is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I try to approach it from the place of I want to hear it all then I will order it in my mind as it makes sense to me and I will try to avoid thinking in absolutes.
-
30
Jehovah's Witness' bid to be excluded from abuse inquiry dismissed
by Tahoe inlink to article.
a legal bid by the jehovah's witness church to get out of being part of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care has been dismissed by the high court in wellington.. after nearly three years of behind-the-scenes legal wrangling to avoid scrutiny from the inquiry, the church applied for a judicial review in june.. at a hearing, held earlier this month it argued it was beyond the inquiry's scope because it did not operate institutions that cared for children or vulnerable people and the inquiry had uncovered no evidence of abuse in that context.. lawyers representing the inquiry argued that jehovah's witness elders - equivalent to ministers or pastors - exercised a level of control over the congregation that allowed them access to children.. the inquiry informed abuse survivors who gave evidence to the inquiry in relation to the jehovah's witnesses of the news this afternoon.. "we have received advice from the high court that none of the causes of action brought by the jehovah's witnesses has succeeded and the application for judicial review has been dismissed.
the judge's reasons are not yet available, but are expected in the near future," the email to survivors, seen by rnz, said.. the church was the only faith-based institution in the country to legally challenge its involvement in the inquiry, although it had attempted to challenge its status in other countries where similar inquiries have also been carried out.. the inquiry said, in a statement, that the dismissal "means the royal commission can continue to investigate the jehovah's witnesses, and all other faiths, in accordance with the pastoral care approach we have been applying since 2019".. "reasons for the high court's judgment are not yet available but are expected in the near future.
-
-
Big Dog
They have always had, at best, an apathy, and at worst a genuine dislike of children. Children are useless to them and therefore unwelcome really. Ever see a playground at a KH? No, and I doubt you ever will. Cry rooms, separate teaching sessions age appropriate for children? Not part of the program because that does nothing to further their agenda. I can remember them counseling couples not to have children, being so close to the end and all, that way they could spend more time in the field.
The abusers have some use, they contribute financially and recruit, the kids are just baggage. That is exactly how they think. They are such weasels legally, always trying to bend the law to their ends with the lamest arguments and explanations. The difference is they are dealing with people with functioning brains in court, not people that have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to actually believe the crap that they spew.
-
81
My conclusion on the matter
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inafter being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.
i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.
but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.
-
-
Big Dog
"It is a moral fact that doing gratuitous injury to others is always 'bad'."
Ok, that's what I thought you meant. A moral fact is another way of saying based on my opinion, belief, view of the universe, desired outcome etc etc doing gratuitous injury is always bad. Incidentally, my moral compass would agree with that statement.
The way you originally stated it seemed as if you were of the school of thought that there were certain moral absolutes which I don't believe there are. All morality from wherever it springs is a human and social construct and not scientifically verifiable. Physicist Sean Carroll argues that morality cannot be a part of science...and that the scientific method cannot answer moral questions. We don't have a periodic table of virtues and it is evident by the vastly different views of morality held by different cultures that it is a moral fact because we make it so.
I can understand when people echo Dostoyevsky's "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted, " the affirmation made by the character Ivan Karamazov in the The Brothers Karamazov. If one can escape from the law men and know they will never be judged, will they still behave morally? The lawlessness that often accompanies a breakdown in social order can certainly make one wonder if humans are truly moral creatures. The old saying is that civilization is three meals away from anarchy. I have seen the truth of that up close and personally.
The counter argument being that the fact that we have the capacity to create norms and law gives us proof of a moral consciousness independent from any supernatural source. Or is that simply each person's desire to be secure in their persons that they agree together that anything that someone else does that injures me is therefore wrong?
I'm splitting hairs here as an intellectual exercise, as I mentioned above my moral compass is pretty traditional by current American standards. We holding these truths to self-evident and so forth, but if there is no supreme being handing out moral absolutes then I can understand where people might feel that in the absence of said supreme being and fear of human punishment that morality might be pretty flexible and why shouldn't I do whatever the heck I want.