Posts by gumb

79

'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou in

in the wake of richard dawkins bestseller 'the god delusion' (which i and many others here have read) there has been a good deal of rebuttal from the 'faith' community.

now a new book is out published by alister mcgrath, professor of theology at oxford university.

it is entitled 'the dawkins delusion'.. has anyone read it or ordered it yet?

gumb

Madame Quixote,

FACT

: 1. a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true. 2 a datum of experience (often foll. by an explanatory clause or phrase: the fact that fire burns; the fact of my having seen them). 3 (usu. in pl.) an item of verified information; a piece of evidence. 4 truth, reality. 5 a thing assumed as the basis for argument or inference. (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

So, a fact is something 'known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true'. Which means it must be testable and capable of being proven. The dictionary extract gives the example of the fact that fire burns. This is immediately testable, much to the dismay of the one being burned! It is what we might call a solid fact. Now there are of course things that have gained the reputation of fact on the basis of overwhelming evidence, which therefore is established as such by being 'assumed as the basis for argument or inference'. As an example, a coroner's verdict that someone was murdered even though there were no witnesses to the 'fact' of the crime. In this case, in line with what I said regarding 'logic', the coroner has to use his experience as a guide to reaching his conclusion.

As I understand it, evolutionists claim evolution as fact, but explanations of the process of evolution as theory. Now, the problem with this is that biologists use words like 'micro evolution' and 'species', where others would use 'adaptation' and 'variations'. We could argue about what we mean by 'evolution', but for now let us agree that micro evolution or adaptation - minor changes in shape and colour for example, is provable (ie fact), here and now. Of course, we will differ on why it happens or what drives it.

Macro evolution - huge changes in biological makeup without a guiding hand, is something entirely different, in that it is not (to my knowledge) observable and therefore provable in the world in which we live. This is what most non-biologists would probably, I think, regard as 'evolution', that is the changing from one recognisable 'type' to that of another. This leads us inevitably to the question of evidence, which I will talk about in another post.

Thanks for all the information posted. Please don't take offense, but I believe that it is the responsibility of those who champion the cause of a particular thing to present their arguments personally. For one thing a huge amount of one's personal time can be wasted wading through other people's articles to find the salient bits amongst things that are often already known. However, I don't object to small quotes on specific points of argument. If one is not able to defend ones belief system personally, then it does beg the question, "Do this person truly know why they believe the way they do?" A question which we all here probably agree is relevant to the majority of JWs.

I applaud you in the fact (no pun intended) that you left the WTS with the noble reason that you were prepared to think for yourself. This was also the case with me and is a driving force in my deciding what I believe is true. I do not allow peer pressure or what the 'experts' say to determine for me what I should believe, and that is why I was not prepared to 'jump out of the frying pan (WTS) and into the fire (some other belief system)'. Although I have looked into the claims of evolutionists, I can honestly say that the belief in life by chance never appealed to me intellectually.

79

'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou in

in the wake of richard dawkins bestseller 'the god delusion' (which i and many others here have read) there has been a good deal of rebuttal from the 'faith' community.

now a new book is out published by alister mcgrath, professor of theology at oxford university.

it is entitled 'the dawkins delusion'.. has anyone read it or ordered it yet?

gumb

Madame Quixote, thank you for your response. My access to the internet is limited, so please excuse the delay in addressing your posts.

I would like to begin by addressing the first word under consideration:

LOGICAL

: "1 of logic or formal argument. 2 not contravening the laws of thought, correctly reasoned. 3 deducible or defensible on the ground of consistency; reasonably to be believed or done. 4 capable of correct reasoning." (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

My view is that humans are able to determine what is 'reasonable to be believed or done' only on the basis of their own experience. In my experience life begets life, design requires a designer. Logic is based on what we have observed to be the case under testable circumstances. Therefore, the unknown can be tested 'logically' only by observation of the world as we know it now, not millions of years ago. If design by designers is the norm in the testable world, then I fail to see how it is 'not logical' to believe in an ultimate designer (God, or whatever you wish to call him/her/it). In the absence of absolute evidence, one can extrapolate only by experience. Now I am not saying that there is a God, just that I disagree with the blanket term 'not logical' (or 'contravening the laws of thought') to believe in one.

I look forward to more discussion.

56

Homeschooling . Are you for or against?

by becca1 in

jw
friends

just want to take a poll.

no need for explinations, just for or against.. me- against..

gumb

Has anyone read the book, "The Underground History Of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto? It's quite an eye opener.

86

Stupid Brits!

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

we can take it!

c'mon tell us why we're so stupid, it can't be that difficult we elected tony blair for god's sake!.

.

gumb

'Cause they give this country a bad name!

79

'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou in

in the wake of richard dawkins bestseller 'the god delusion' (which i and many others here have read) there has been a good deal of rebuttal from the 'faith' community.

now a new book is out published by alister mcgrath, professor of theology at oxford university.

it is entitled 'the dawkins delusion'.. has anyone read it or ordered it yet?

gumb

FACT

: 1. a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true. 2 a datum of experience (often foll. by an explanatory clause or phrase: the fact that fire burns; the fact of my having seen them). 3 (usu. in pl.) an item of verified information; a piece of evidence. 4 truth, reality. 5 a thing assumed as the basis for argument or inference. (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

LOGICAL

: "1 of logic or formal argument. 2 not contravening the laws of thought, correctly reasoned. 3 deducible or defensible on the ground of consistency; reasonably to be believed or done. 4 capable of correct reasoning." (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

EMPIRICAL

: "1 based on or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory. 2. Philos. regarding sense-data as valid information. 3 deriving knowledge from experience alone." (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

EVIDENCE

: 1 the available facts [see above], circumstances, etc. supporting or otherwise a belief, proposition, etc., or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid.2Lawa information given personally or drawn from a document etc. and tending to prove a fact or porposition. b statements or proofs admissible as testimony in a lawcourt. 3 clearness, obviousness. (The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).

Madame Quixote, I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions for me:

1. In what sense do you think evolution a 'fact'?

2. In what sense do you think is it not 'logical' to believe in God?

3. In what sense is there 'empirical' 'evidence' for evolution?

Thank you.

BTW: I greatly enjoyed reading 'The God Delusion'; Dawkins made a lot of valid points about religion, and I look forward to hearing what a religious person has to say about those points in 'The Dawkins Delusion'. And would someone who believes in the Bible please give a proper answer to the question raised about Adam and salvation, and the reason for Jesus being 'the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (ie where did this sin come from then?)!

56

Homeschooling . Are you for or against?

by becca1 in

jw
friends

just want to take a poll.

no need for explinations, just for or against.. me- against..

gumb

It depends on who is doing it. Those committed to it can be extremely helpful to their kids in producing well educated (as in for life skills), socially fit members of society by giving them experience in the real world, as opposed to the artificial environment of school. However, it must be said there are parents who are not fit to do the job. So my answer is yes or no depending on individual circumstances.

26

The Blasphemy Challenge

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

according to the bible, if your sins are not forgiven by jesus you will experience an eternity of fiery torment in hell.

the only sin you won't be forgiven for is blaphemy of the holy spirit.

(mark 3:29).

gumb

Well, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit is more important than the Father and the Son then, so maybe praying to him/her/it (delete according to your own belief system) is the way to go.

That just leaves the matter of Death. When does He go to hell and burn forever? (See Revelation and the lake of fire).

48

What will it take for me to stop this?

by sibboleth in

jw
friends

i have lurked for over a year.

i keep coming back here - everytime i do - it's like witnessing a car wreck.

the things i don't want to read or believe are right here before my eyes - it's like a drug.

gumb

Hi Sibboleth, I've recently rejoined this board after about two years away.

I'm in my late 40s and have a wife who is still a practising JW. Like you I was taken to meetings as a child, and got baptised in my teens; but about six or seven years ago, I just faded away and have kept a low profile which means nobody from the congregation bothers with me any more. Although I don't speak to my wife about things – I've already had a close run in with her in the past over some issue with the organisation and I know she cannot handle knowing how I really feel – I do speak with my grown up children from time to time (thankfully I insisted that they would not consider baptism until they were at least 18, by which time they had definitely decided the WTS wasn't for them). I decided a long time ago that I would never be seen in a kingdom hall again, which meant I missed out on a relative's wedding a few years back. Until recently I would not allow myself to open a JW publication as I considered (using their terminology) any such publication to be a kind of mental poison.

When I first came here, I eventually had to stop posting because I felt I was obsessed with the whole JW thing. I was extremely angry and bitter and in the end wanted no contact with anything that would remind me of my own stolen years. But we have to remember, and particularly those who were brought up in JW households from childhood, that our life revolved around this organisation. It became part of us. So later in life, when we start to question, we eventually come face to face with the psychological damage done to us, and that is not easy to deal with.

However, we can take some comfort in knowing that we are definitely not alone. Nevertheless, because we have been denied self expression for so long, it may take a long time before we can consider ourselves 'normal'. I wish you all the best, and the strength to deal with the trauma (and I don't consider that word over the top) of awakening out of the nightmare.

Oh, and don't forget to show love to those close JW relatives you care about. Just because they act in an unchristian manner, doesn't mean you have to. Hopefully kind actions will over time mellow them at least a little and prove that you don't have to be a JW to be a good worthwhile person.

28

Do JWs know who the king of the north is?

by cultswatter in

i think they used to believe that germany was the kng of the north.

what is their official take on that.

btw does the rev grand climax book talk about that ?.

gumb

According to the WTS, 'the power struggle between these two kings stretches into our day' - Pay Attention To Daniel's Prophecy chapter 13, paragraph 2 (PATDP). Here's my take on their current 'understanding' of Daniel 11. From verses 5-19, the WTS more or less follows The Lion Handbook To The Bible's (TLHTTB) understanding that the 'king of the north' refers to Syria, and the 'king of the south' refers to Egypt. Both lands are, from the viewpoint of Israel, set thus geographically. From verses 20-35, TLHTT identifies the actions as pertaining to the continuing struggle between the previously mentioned 'kings', whereas PATDP jumps ahead in time (identifying the 'king of the north') starting with the Romans Augustus, Tiberius, and Aurelian, through to the German 'empire' and Third Reich of WWI and WWII, and ending up with the 'communist bloc', with Britain and the Anglo-American world powers representing 'the king of the south'. Its interesting that TLHTTB, with reference to verses 36-45, says, "They may refer to the end of Syrian domination at the hand of Rome, the new king from the north. I think that the WTS has got its north and south mixed up when it refers to the Anglo-American powers as the king of the south. My personal opinion is that if one insists that these verses deal with events now or in the near future, it would be more logical to see America as the ultimate extension of the Roman empire, 'the king of the north'. It gets its religion from Roman (4th century) Christianity, has a number of Roman symbols such as the eagle and the senate, and has a warlike mentality as can be seen from its numerous invasions. The 'king of the north' is described as one who would attack with 'many ships', so this 'king' is known to have a large naval capability. This certainly is true of America. The ancient Hebrew word NEGEB which is translated from these scriptures as south, 'comes from an unused root meaning to be parched' (Strongs), and to me aptly applies to the middle east. Whereas the Hebrew word for north (ie TSAPHOWN) has the underlying meaning of 'hidden, ie dark, used only of the north as a quarter (gloomy and unknown)' (Strongs). As such, I see the middle eastern (Muslim) countries as more likely to fit the title 'the king of the south'. Of course, the WTS spiritualises most things and doesn't see the connection between a literal Israel and prophecy. They imagine that somehow JWs will as a group hold so much world attention that they will end up fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, in my opinion, the clash between 'Christian' and Muslim civilisations (with literal Israel in the middle) looks like a far more realistic contender for a precursor to Armageddon. If, of course, you believe in Bible prophecy!

31

Why don't YOU believe anymore?

by Crumpet in

someone on another site was asking "what if they are right?

" which made me think about why i know that they are not and i wondered what was your epiphany or road to damascus moment or moments that just made you realise - hey i've been led up the garden path here!.

here was my response but i really think a list of reasons on one thread for easy reference for newbies would be good.

gumb

I hope you won't mind if I start here, as I'm trying to find my way around the forum! Hi there, I'm new to this forum in the sense that I am here under a new name. I was a member a while back (under two names - forgot both passwords!), but eventually stopped posting because I'd reached the point where I wanted to put behind me any memories of the WTS and was starting to hate having discussions about religious matters in general. I also had a lot of anger and bitterness. Since that time I have made a huge recovery from the years of indoctrination, and have become more of a spiritual person than a religious person, with the added benefit that I'm more tolerant and compassionate towards other people. As a result of this healing and maturing process, I feel much more comfortable discussing things relating to JWs. So, a big 'hello' to everyone!