Did they actually ever stop to think that if it hadn't been for independent thinking there wouldn't have been a Watchtower Society? Russell certainly was an independent thinker when it came to religion. Of course, they applaud converts from other religions for their independent thinking when (as they see it) it leads them into the WTS, but not when it leads them out!
Posts by gumb
-
34Independent Thinking
by Jeffro ini decided to do a search of the watchtower library cd on the phrase 'independent thinking'.
only three times is it ever spoken of as being a good thing.
and those three instances are quite telling about the insidiousness of all of the other times that jw publications consider independent thinking to be such a bad thing.. .
-
-
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
gumb
RAF, I love the idea of ex JWs becoming EWs (Evolution's Witnesses). The next thing you know they'll be knocking on our doors with their own version of the 'Evolution Book' (tm)!
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry 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.
-
-
gumb
Hi emo. Thanks for the welcome and the warning!
Having gone back and read some of the more recent posts, I feel it necessary to write the following:
The fact that simpler type "a" organisms may appear chronologically before more complex type "b" organisms does not in itself prove that one evolved from another. This is the crux of the matter: interpretation. Now, interpretation is not proof. The main point of disagreement between evolutionists and non-evolutionists, is of course not the existence of type "a" or type "b", but rather the relationship (if any) between the two. The existence of type "a" is a fact, just as the existence of type "b" is a fact. However, an assumption that type "b" was derived from type "a" by chance is not a fact; no more than an assumption that type "b" developed from type "a" through pre-programmed potential or that type "b" was directly and separately inserted into the environment is a fact.
One could put on a great exhibition of fossil finds and put them into a supposed evolutionary branch of ever increasing bio-complexity, but this is no proof of evolution, it is proof only that certain types shared certain similarities. So, it is no good directing non-evolutionists to such exhibitions in the belief that they will see the 'fact' of macro evolution, since they will not accept that they are actually seeing any compelling evidence.
BTW, I don't really care whether we evolved or not, there are much more important things in life. However, I do care about free speech, and the right to debate things without recourse to trying to prove one's point by mudslinging!
-
156
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry indoes 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?
.
-
-
gumb
I don't think atheism in itself is dangerous, any more than I think theism is. However, I do believe that where there is unrelenting dogmatism on either side it can be harmful. I am reminded (don't ask me why) of a book I read years ago by John Cleese and a Dr Skinner(?) which discussed mental health, and based on the doctor's own personal experience he came to the conclusion that the happiest people tended to be those who believed in something higher than themselves, in other words those who were spiritual rather than religious. I think the key to whether or not something is harmful is ascertaining its affect on society. Does it tend to promote peace and personal responsibility, and the qualities of love and tolerance?
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry 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.
-
-
gumb
1. Skyking, you ask, "How can such a highly intelligent God come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that God has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. I would like to ask, "How can matter/energy come from nothing?" This is the paradox facing non-believers, and that is why the 'answer' would be that matter/energy has always existed; something the human mind cannot grasp. So both sides are faced with that which in the light of human experience is not logical! You pay your money and you take your choice.
2. A. Kate, extremely valid points you make concerning any group belief.
3. Seeker4, with regard to the illustration about electricity. Yes, but we can all test the reality of electricty! But we can't test the 'reality' of macro evolution.
4. Asheron, any change in genetic code to such a degree as you indicate (ie dog into a cat) needs both a comprehensive list of changes and means of implementing those changes. This is where the question arises, "Is it more likely to be done through chance or through a guiding hand?"
5. Abbadon, I think I would go to a dentist to deal with my teeth because he is an expert in teeth, and as such I would tend to trust his opinion on how to deal with teeth, but I would not feel obliged to accept his personal views on how human beings got teeth in the first place. Likewise with a biologist.
6. Since evolutionists tell us that macro evolution is a fact, and that the 'theory' of evolution is just a way of explaining it, then I assume the majority of articles by evolutionists will not address the real point of contention, which means one could end up wasting a lot of time reading their articles. However, if someone could point me to one online article that really addresses the issue in a concise manner (ie not reams and reams of electronic pages), I'll read it.
7. To me, evidence for/against God falls under the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence, and should therefore be viewed not only as a religious interest, but as a scientific one. Some non-religious people are already prepared to see it that way, for example in the theory of 'direct panspermia'
8. It should be made clear that the possession of skulls, bones, fossils, etc cannot prove macro evolution. The existence of such possessions is fact. However, the interpretation of how they came about (and in some cases even what species they are) is not.
BTW: I am not a creationist, and I don't form my views from the Bible or any other religious book for that matter.
-
79
'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'
by nicolaou inin 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
I think some of the posts here (including my own) have gone off topic. In future, if I post in this thread, I will keep my comments to things relating to the book under discussion. But I have to read "The Dawkin's Delusion" first! I have the book on order and hope to have read it within the next week or two.
-
3
After all you've read and seen...
by Honesty indo you still believe that the watchtower society has god's approval?
-
-
gumb
Did it ever have God's approval?!
-
79
'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'
by nicolaou inin 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
Abbadon,
On the matter of 'fact' and 'logic', please note my previous postings.
1. Please elaborate on what you mean by '(a) simple forms of life developing into (b) more complex ones'; examples would be good. Are these evolutionary routes from (a) to (b) actually observable and provable today, or is this an extrapolation?
.
2. "Pfff..." - I didn't catch you practising a bit of alchemy did I?! Firstly, why have so many people got it in for tooth fairy? What harm has she ever done anyone? ;) Seriously, your list is quite interesting and I understand its implications. It touches on such diverse themes as myths, conspiracies, history, archaeology, 'religious' belief. But in determining what is 'logical' one must first put aside prejudices, and look at each subject in a detached way based on available evidence, primarily through the mind rather that the emotions. Some people's belief in God (designer(s)) will not be 'logical' because 'logic' (the mind) is not the underlying basis for their belief, but rather emotion is. However, others will see origins of living types through God (designer(s)) is 'logical' to them in the way I have described previously.
Because of what you included in your list, I would be interested in getting your response to the following questions: (a) "Based upon your experience of seeing buildings demolished in a controlled manner, what would your 'logic' dictate in seeing the twin towers falling in the same manner?" (b) "Based upon testable proof that ignited aviation fuel could never generate enough heat to melt the metal supports of the twin towers, would your 'logic' dictate that they could not have fallen as a result of the ignition of aviation fuel?" (c) "Knowing that the twin towers were constructed in such a way as to safely take the impact of large commercial planes, would your 'logic' dictate that the twin towers could not have fallen as a result of such an impact?" Or in the face of such evidence would you think it 'logical' to go along with the official story. In other words, is what you believe what you honestly believe or is it based on what the majority believe; this is the test of a real seeker of truth - and it requires one to stand alone at times.
3. I suspect that you are talking about micro evolution which is, to me, merely an adaptation within set limits, leading eventually to a biological dead end (ie sterility). To a origin by design believer this could be illustrated by a computer program incorporating a random number generator and an array of attributes which through the use of internal logic can produce a large quantity of different types based on a prototype.
-
79
'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'
by nicolaou inin 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 inin 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.