Posts by BarefootServant

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

Gladring said:

Dawkins places himself in the category 6 "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist." He has many times said that one cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist.

I suspect Dawkins only claims he is a 6 because he knows that 7 is scientifically untenable. But the rest of his words and actions, in particular his genuine contempt for anyone professing belief in God, demonstrate his true position, IMO. But anyway, you said that Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God. In which case, why would he have strong views either way? Why does he feel it necessary to place adverts on London buses saying God doesn't exist, or write books saying God is a delusion, if he has no evidence either way? Maybe he just likes the publicity.

Inkling said:

Bacteria, in some case, GAIN abilities, such as the biological
tools required to process nylon. Digesting nylon required a specific enzyme that these bacteria
did not have before the invention of nylon in 1935. Now they do. What would you call that, if not an "increase in complexity"?

It is likely that the ability to synthesize different types of enzymes was already present within the 1935 bacteria. Our immune system is likewise capable of responding to completely new types of invasion (unfortunately not always fast enough to save life). I mentioned The Edge of Evolution because some specific bacteria are discussed in detail and it is very interesting to see their actual capabilites and the definite limitations to their adaptions, even over long time scales.

150

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips in

campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?

that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.

"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".

BarefootServant

"The only process that we know of that can produce complexity from simplicity is Darwinian natural selection"

Sorry to be pendantic, but this is not quite correct. It is not possible for Darwinian natural selection to produce complexity by itself (and I'm here taking the word complexity as commonly understood, complicated but organised). Natural selection has to select from variation, which is itself normally limited by what is specified in the DNA (hence you can't selectively breed dogs until you create a new species). The only variation that we are aware of that can create something new is mutation (in which we include DNA copy errors etc.). It is alleged that selection from a range of such mutations gives rise to complexity, but to state categorically that selection of mutations over a long time period is the origin of complexity is pushing it too far, since this is very difficult to demonstrate scientifically. For example, much is made of the ability of bacteria and viruses to 'adapt' to pathogens, but in every case this is a result of reduction in the organism's complexity, as pointed out by Michael Behe in 'The Edge of Evolution'.

Strawman: Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God.

I don't think Dawkins would agree, since him saying that there is no proof for God would make him an agnostic. Dawkins' view is surely not just that there is no proof for God, but that he definitely does not exist. Which, as the article points out, is a statement of belief since it is not possible to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

23

Is Third Heaven a Near Death Experience?

by cameo-d in

2 corinthians 12:2. i know a man in christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.

whether it was in the body or out of the body i do not knowgod knows.. .

is it astral projection?

BarefootServant

Hi,

Well, another interpretation would be:

The first heaven is just 'the heavens', ie where the birds fly

The second heaven is above first heaven, the abode of the planets and stars

The third heaven is the abode of God himself - what we call heaven

These three being represented by the three divisions of the temple arrangement.

12

Waters above the Firmament as the source of rain

by VM44 in

from the king james bible.

god said, "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

and god made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

BarefootServant

But do you think the bible writer was so stupid that he did not realise that big black clouds passing over seemed to be connected with rain? In which case, he must have known perfectly well that the source of rain was clouds in the sky, and not something above the sky? Leaving the question, what was he really trying to tell us?

66

VOTE YOUR "SILVER BULLET" QUESTION

by V in

i'm quizzing all my sources for the ultimate "silver-bullet" question for a jw at your door.

the best questions will be used in a video series on watchtower comments.

the goal is to help people respond to jws.. the question must be direct and designed to open the jw mind, not necessarily to win an argument.. i would prefer to avoid doctrinal debate such as trinity, cross, even thiest/athiest subjects.

BarefootServant

Or...

Since you claim 1914 is pinpointed by prophecy, please show me the scripture that shows the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE.

66

VOTE YOUR "SILVER BULLET" QUESTION

by V in

i'm quizzing all my sources for the ultimate "silver-bullet" question for a jw at your door.

the best questions will be used in a video series on watchtower comments.

the goal is to help people respond to jws.. the question must be direct and designed to open the jw mind, not necessarily to win an argument.. i would prefer to avoid doctrinal debate such as trinity, cross, even thiest/athiest subjects.

BarefootServant

Or along the same lines of

The WTS/FDS/GB teaches that a Christian (jw) cannot store their blood to be transfused later. Why then is it a conscience matter for a jw to use hemoglobin-based products made out of expired stored human and animal blood?

ask: If blood is to be poured out onto the ground, how can blood fractions be scripturally obtained?

66

VOTE YOUR "SILVER BULLET" QUESTION

by V in

i'm quizzing all my sources for the ultimate "silver-bullet" question for a jw at your door.

the best questions will be used in a video series on watchtower comments.

the goal is to help people respond to jws.. the question must be direct and designed to open the jw mind, not necessarily to win an argument.. i would prefer to avoid doctrinal debate such as trinity, cross, even thiest/athiest subjects.

BarefootServant

Q. (thinking blood issue) Would it be right to break one of God's explicit laws in order to save a life?

A. Of course not!

Then refer to the Lord Jesus Christ's view on the same question to the Pharisees (Mark 3): "is it right to save a life on the sabbath?"

10

looking for opinions....would this have ANY success?

by The Oracle in

looking to try something a little different with my ongoing campaigns to free minds from the wt.. .

if this was sent to a few thousand jw's do you think any would respond?

i'll check back in tonight and see if anyone has any thoughts on this.. .

BarefootServant

Nope. Sorry to be negative, but here's how it will go:

Hmmm, what's this?

Do you honestly think a loving God would kill over 6 billion people, and spare only 6 million, because they wouldn't serve him?

Yes, of course, it's what the bible says, God is the judge, and he will only kill the wicked and the righteous will live in paradise

Would your conscience allow YOU to do that, if you were the all powerful creator?

It's not up to me mate, anyway, where's this going? I bet it's that apostate literature I've been warned about

If you wouldn't have the heart to kill all those people, old men and women, babies and young children, do you honestly think a loving God would?

I already told you, didn't I? Yeah, this is definitely apostate literature, bye bye

19

What do you feel is the reason the WTS succeeds in retaining its members?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

most of my family have been members since the early 1970's.they attend 3 meetings per week,fly or drive to summer assemblies,preach the average 10 hours per month,and read the same boring watchtower magazine week after week.

the congregation has lost nearly all the young teens,many have quit attending all the meetings,some divorced,and some members just going thru the motions.

i'm never going to question them on why they still remain members but shouldn't all the promises of "this generation never dying" make them question the wts.... just a little?

BarefootServant

Wobble said:

I believe you have it spot on,but how can we break through that mindset,I have nearly all my close family,and some dear friends still"in". I know this has been discussed but how do we help them to open their eyes and hearts?

From my experience so far, and I expect yours too, even those that love and trust us will recoil at any attempt to tell them the truth. They are so comfortable in, and comforted by, their beliefs that it feels almost unkind to try to unplug them. Really, change can only come from within them themselves, and at a time when they're ready for it, when they realise that it is not wrong (and not too painful) to face up to the possibility that they've been misled. A turning point for my wife was when she suddenly became conscious of the fact that her main reason for going to meetings and on the ministry was guilt, and that that could not be the right motive for serving God. But it has not been easy for her and we're not free yet. Like you we have family still 'in', and we are treading very carefully.

I know that feeling of helplessness. We want a quick fix. But I think the most we can do is to be non-confrontational, plant a little seed, maybe a question or a piece of scriptual information which may get them to think. Other than that, love them and always be there for them. I don't know what else we can do.

11

"He Causes to Become"

by megs in

i'm reading the public edition of watchtower for september and it says that "jehovah" means "he causes to become".

i've never seen this before... is this the jw's definition of the tetragrammaton?

.

BarefootServant

Isn't 'He Causes to Become' simply another way of saying Creator?

I said this at a group study once. Went down like a lead balloon then as well.