Posts by PrimateDave

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

PrimateDave

Hi thetrueone,

Don't worry. We read your posts. I agree with you. Approaching the study of evolution in isolation from other scientific disciplines is counterintuitive.

Dave

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

Elmo,

It helps to mentally picture all life forms in existence today as if they are the tips of branches on a very large tree. In fact evolutionary biologist refer to this as the phylogenic tree, or tree of common decent.

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

PrimateDave

There is a BIG difference between belief in a divine being or beings (Christianity isn't alone in this world, you know), the existence of which can neither be proved or disproved objectively, and a belief in the literal/semi-literal interpretation of the Creation Account per Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

Had you read the information in Seeker4's posted link to the NY Times you might have read the following:

"One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs."

Apparently, many people can accept a scientific explanation for human origins and believe in a god without having to fit the evidence to some old scrolls written by tribal poets.

Why is it so necessary for the professionals that you cite to accept the BIBLICAL account of creation? Surely, they can just believe in a god of their choice, can't they? After all, who's to say that Vishnu isn't the almighty God?

From the Wikipedia: "The Vishnu Sahasranama[1] describes Vishnu as the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of and beyond the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within." It must be true! It says so in the Wikipedia!!!

Your signs of cult thinking do not apply here. Seeker4 and others DO NOT FORCE anyone to accept their ideas. If anything, we encourage everyone to look at all the information with an open mind and see how it applies in the real world. We practice neither shunning nor excommunications. Thank you.

Dave

156

Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers

by Perry in

does the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.

since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?

.

PrimateDave

So, before I go and read all of the interesting responses to this "Questions for Unbelievers", I should like to address the original post. My apologies if these points are already covered.

Please present incontrovertible evidence that there is an "all-loving" deity. If there really is a "deity" "out there", how can you know that it is "loving" or anything like the one in your imagination? All I have ever seen in my entire life are people, humans just like me, some of whom claim to know what some god wants me to do based on some books obviously written by other humans who were ignorant of many facts that we take for granted today. What it usually boils down to is a scam to get me to use my life energies to further their cause.

I propose that many people who believed in god(s) throughout human history have committed gross atrocities in the name of their chosen deity(s), while others who believed in god(s) have upheld the highest moral standards of their culture. Where is there any evidence that the wicked were held any more accountable than the good, except perhaps by human systems of justice?

I was taught all my life that an all-powerful God of perfect love, justice, wisdom, and power had all things under control. It said so right in the Bible. Since I am rather new at being an atheist, I consider myself handicapped by my former beliefs. I never realized that I had so much power and responsibility for my own life. I want to do what is good for all and help my fellow humans, not because some god said so, but because I can see with my own eyes the consequences of causing harm to myself and others. Had I been taught how the world really works as a child, perhaps I could have accomplished so much more with my life.

That is a straw man argument against what is a well established scientific theory. The theory of Evolution is modern man's attempt to explain how the millions of species of life that currently inhabit planet Earth got to their current state of development by examining volumes of evidence available from current life forms and the fossil record of previous life forms found within the Earth's crust. As such, the theory of Evolution encompasses and adds to numerous other established sciences such as geology, biology, anthropology, paleontology, and ecology, to name a few that come to mind.

To say that evolution is about the "survival of the fittest" does not clarify what is meant by the term "fittest". If, as some propose, that being fit means "killing off the weaker", then the oppressive growth of modern industrial civilization based on the economics of greed, at the expense of "weaker" human cultures, species, and ecosystems, can be justified by claiming that it is somehow a "natural" evolutionary process. Therefore, "might makes right," or "obey me or I'll kill you." Now that sounds like God to me.

What the theory of Evolution can teach us is that diversity is paramount in life. Natural systems operate in cycles. Lifeforms cooperate. Biological systems strive for ecological balance. All natural systems are in a state of flux. Defective lifeforms do not usually reproduce, while lifeforms with useful adaptations can.

In climax ecosystems the web of life can be highly interconnected. This web gets that way because the lifeforms of a bioregion evolve together. It's what makes the native flora and fauna of places like the Amazon, Australia, and the Kalahari so unique. It also helps us to understand how humankind is upsetting the natural balances that have existed in these regions for millions of years by causing extinctions and introducing new exotic species that didn't evolve within the bioregion.

What most people in modern democracies want, regardless of whether they believe in the theory of evolution or not, is to live long and happy lives. We evolved as a cooperative species. It is in our own interest to take care of other members of our family and social network. It contributes to our fitness as a species to care for fellow human beings. We can even empathize with people who look different or speak a different language.

Our success as a species could also be our downfall. We are generally overpopulated on this planet. We consume resources faster than most natural systems can compensate. We have crossed the line from cooperating with our fellow species to genocidal competition with them. Unfortunately, when the resources we need to survive become scarce, we often resort to killing one another, sometimes in the name of God. Social and family ties can break down over perceived differences. A popular difference to kill other people over is religion. Sadly, many people think that God will bless them for killing their fellow man. Under such circumstances, where is the divine accounting?

I propose that you don't know what you're really talking about. Additionally, you don't know what I believe and why I believe it. Finally, I have to say that the real problem might be a narrow minded preoccupation with what you think has to be real because of your own vested psychological interests.

Homo postindustrialus)

51

My dear atheist posters, what would you recommend . . .

by pennycandy in

for a reliable, accurate study of the authenticity of the bible and/or the existence of god?.

.

PrimateDave

Well, for starters, there is a series of essays that rebut Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict at

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

An old book that I found useful is Is It God's Word? by Joseph Wheless. It is not up-to-date accurate, nor is it scholarly, but you may find some useful information in it, nonetheless. I recommend starting in chapter 2. You can read it for free (a scanned version of the printed book with typos in HTML format) at

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/is_it_gods_word/

Finally, there is a more recent book that you can also read for free (HTML or PDF) called Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long available at

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

You may also find the information at http://www.talkorigins.org/ interesting.

Dave

22

The earth can hold only 9 billion persons at the most

by cultswatter in

*** public address by district overseer bro.

charles sunutko in spring 1967 in sheboygan, wisconsin[recording of this talk available in realaudio format, 2,745kb, approx 22 minute recording].

"serving with everlasting life in view"............. "the watchtower 1964, page 722, paragraph 24, and listen to this: "tens of billions will be back".. how many are tens of billions?

PrimateDave

Mariusuk said: "The earth could hold FAR more than 9 billion, you can times that figure by ten and have room left"

Sure, standing room, but who would want to live there...

The ecosystem necessarily needs to remain intact to avoid dissolving into smaller and smaller chunks and pieces. Islandification is the process by which humans first crack, then break apart, then shatter to pieces intact ecosystems. Ecosystems once divided into islands undergo a process of dissolution and decay of biodiversity which is identical in predictability to radioactive decay or to the loss of thermokinetic energy of particulate matter as it cools. As far as observation has gone, the law of biodiversity decay is applicable to all fragmented islands without exception. In the science of ecology this has been one immutable law, all sudden global change leads to the extinction of species. The human changes of the last hundred years have been both very profound and very sudden in an evolutionary time frame.

"These fragments are islands in the same sense that Hyde Park and Central park are islands. They are pieces of biosphere surrounded by people. As the tide of human beings rises in the next century, and we push towards a controlling interest of 80% (of NTPP), the biosphere can only become more and more fragmented. Although human beings cluster more and more in cities, and although we try to grow more and more food per acre, we shatter the biosphere into a Milky Way of islands.

This trend alone, this single global change, puts the projections of the demographers on a collision course with the projections of ecologists. It is such a bad business that it shadows the whole human project with doubt. It is one of the key reasons why, as Ehrlich writes, a world of ten billion people is, 'a preposterous notion to ecologists who already see the deadly impacts of today's level of human activities.'" Jonathan Weiner, The Next One Hundred Years, 1990

Another quote:

"To put this in context, you must remember that estimates of the long-term carrying capacity of Earth with relatively optimistic assumptions about consumption, technologies, and equity (A x T), are in the vicinity of two billion people. Today's population cannot be sustained on the 'interest' generated by natural ecosystems, but is consuming its vast supply of natural capital -- especially deep, rich agricultural soils, 'fossil' groundwater, and biodiversity -- accumulated over centuries to eons. In some places soils, which are generated on a time scale of centimeters per century are disappearing at rates of centimeters per year. Some aquifers are being depleted at dozens of times their recharge rates, and we have embarked on the greatest extinction episode in 65 million years." -- Paul Ehrlich (Sept. 25, 1998)

Dave

22

The earth can hold only 9 billion persons at the most

by cultswatter in

*** public address by district overseer bro.

charles sunutko in spring 1967 in sheboygan, wisconsin[recording of this talk available in realaudio format, 2,745kb, approx 22 minute recording].

"serving with everlasting life in view"............. "the watchtower 1964, page 722, paragraph 24, and listen to this: "tens of billions will be back".. how many are tens of billions?

PrimateDave

Those are good points, AuldSoul. I have to agree that in many respects the human race has never had it so good. I often find myself even admiring the system and yet despising it at the same time.

I am extremely glad that technology has brought us things like improved medical care and access to knowledge like never before. Certainly, without such knowledge, many of us would still be slaves of the Watchtower Society or even worse.

On the other hand, is it really a "good thing" that we can now put in to "productive use", albeit temporarily, marginal lands in order to provide for more human beings, and livestock, at the expense of self regulating ecosystems?

And, who really benefits the most? A little research shows that small farmers in many poor nations are forced off the land because they can't compete with the artificially cheap, subsidized grain imports from countries like the United States. Said farmers go to the congested, disease spreading cities in search of work. Foreign Corporations use vast tracts of land in poor countries to grow specialty foods for export to rich countries, not for feeding the mostly underpaid workers on these modern day plantations. Add to this the artificial weight of "foreign debt" imposed on these countries, to be paid through the labor of the common man and the resources of his land, for the benefit of Big Corporations and their Investors.

I really want to be optimistic. Really. It is very foolish, however, to ignore the horrible things that are going on in this world just because they might make you uncomfortable.

Dave (who hopes for a better future but is mentally prepared for the worst)

22

The earth can hold only 9 billion persons at the most

by cultswatter in

*** public address by district overseer bro.

charles sunutko in spring 1967 in sheboygan, wisconsin[recording of this talk available in realaudio format, 2,745kb, approx 22 minute recording].

"serving with everlasting life in view"............. "the watchtower 1964, page 722, paragraph 24, and listen to this: "tens of billions will be back".. how many are tens of billions?

PrimateDave

WAY too much optimism in this thread! First and foremost, the Governing Body doesn't know shrit about ecology, ecosystems, or sustainability. Their fantasy about billions being resurrected to life on Earth is just that, a FANTASY.

Second, a look at some 'facts'.

We have already exceeded this planet's natural carrying capacity. We are supporting ourselves, just barely, by using the stored solar energy found in fossil fuels. Sure, we can burn up all that stored energy (mining, refining, transportation, pesticides, fertilizers, hydroponics, manufacturing, etc.) and eliminate the last vestiges of natural ecosystems to grow food and line our landfills with plastic junk. Keep in mind that the best land for agriculture is already being used and rapidly depleted. What is left is marginal land at best. Our climate will continue to change, perhaps in ways that we cannot predict yet. Our fresh water aquifers will deplete. Our fossil fuel sources will deplete. Our topsoils will disappear. Land and ocean based ecosystems will deplete and collapse. Did I leave anything out?

Does it only become a catastrophe when the last of the old growth forests are cleared? Does it only become a catastrophe when the last coral reef dies? The point is, do we have to look catastrophe in the face before we realize that we have gone too far?

The relative 'wealth' we in the post-industrial First World enjoy now is based on the suffering and impoverishment of the relatively resource-rich Third World. Our political and military systems have arranged the greatest theft in human history, often ironically in support of 'democracy.' I suppose that it is this redistribution of wealth that allows many of us in the west to praise our assumedly superior technology for our temporary improvement in comfort. (Recommended reading: A People's History of the United States)

Indeed, everything may seem fine for us right now in our personal comfort zones. Those who have greater relative wealth may think my neo-Malthusian comments are absurd. Rest assured, though, the price for our temporary comfort IS being paid by someone else, somewhere else right now.

Do you have faith in technology? Today I saw a magazine rack in the supermarket checkout. On top was a Popular Mechanics with a ballistic missile on the cover. It boasted, "America's Newest Super Weapon!" Down on the bottom rack a National Geographic asked "Amazonia, Will the Forest Disappear?" (Not the exact titles. Translated from Spanish and written from memory.)

In his book The Long Emergency, author James Howard Kunstler explained that technology enables entropy. That is, concentrated resources, like energy, become dispersed. Or perhaps to the point, technology helps increase consumption instead of improving conservation. In a natural system, the population is constrained by the resource limits. Technology overcomes this limitation by removing resources from one area to another. This permits a temporary increase in population until all resources are eventually consumed. Then there is the inevitable collapse. http://www.kunstler.com/

For more reading on food, land, water, and population: http://www.dieoff.org/index.htm#foodpop

What does the future hold? I don't know.

Dave (veteran thread killer)

35

Hi newbie saying hello

by nikitaeve in

hi there, i'm nikitaeve and id just like to say hi to everyone here.

i used to be a witness and was one for about nine years but i still regard everyone with the warmest of feelings and i still believe the teachings.

a little bit about myself; im from england.

PrimateDave

Hello and Welcome,

You'll find a lively and diverse group of people here. Hope you'll stick around and enjoy the fun!

Dave

14

Six Steps To XJW Freedom

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

1) find your 'crisis of conscience' and practice saying 'cognitive dissonace' in front of a mirror until it rolls of the tongue as easily as 'red herring', 'circular reasoning', strawman.

do not be put off by the rest of the family laughing at you and your dog using your leg as a latrine.

the knack is to make people think that you knew what all this information meant before you read the book.

PrimateDave

"2) Learn how to swear. No need to start the process gently, jump in at the deep end and use all those words that mummy would have blackened your backside for. Try to make out that swearing is second nature to you."

It can help to know swear words in different languages, too! LOL!

Dave