Posts by BarefootServant

39

Beat to Hell.......were you as a child as a JW?

by restrangled in

there was a scripture about a rod.......it seemed to be in every other watchtower.....it was an excuse to beat children.

i was a little girl.

i was beat with my pants down every time they could.

BarefootServant

Having been in for many years, I saw and noted the gradual change from the 'scripturally based' and WTS enthusiastically endorsed practice of proudly smacking your kids if they so much as sniffed during the meeting, to the current enlightened and 'scripturally based' view of tolerance and appropriate discipline where the sound of a thwack is unheard of in the KH and some kids even have (shock! horror!) the occasional colouring book. What a coincidence that this progressive thinking happened exactly in parallel with the attitude of society in general toward the treatment of children. Not that I approve of course, I pine for the good ol' days when you could vent your frustrations on the kids - even if you didn't have any.

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

Irkr said:

I'm really hoping for an anti-athiest argument that makes some sense. At least then there can be a discussion. Right now, its like watching a Superbowl between "any other team" and the Buffalo Bills.

The argument is that strict atheism is a belief system like any other. However this does tend to get bogged down in semantics since there are differing opinions and therefore plenty of wiggle room as to what an a-theist is. It turns out that many atheists (including Dawkins, if you believe him) say they accept the possibility of the existence of God, but just do not see any evidence for it. Personally I prefer to call this agnosticism, but moving on from the semantics we get to the interesting question of what would be considered evidence for God for these atheist-agnostics? Which is why I posted my nanobot scenario and if you'd care to think about it I'd be interested to know whether you would consider the discovery of advanced nanotechnology on the moon as admissable evidence for alien intelligence.

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

Hi Dave,

There are a lot here, like you, that are in reactionary mode, and I understand since I too was once under WT mind-control. Like you I would currrently run a mile from involvement in organised religion. But this does not prevent me from believing in God and the scriptures, although I am less confident, and less dogmatic, than I once was.

I understand the differences between engineered, purpose built objects that don't reproduce and biochemical systems that evolve and reproduce.

But what if we engineer objects that do reproduce? Conceptually there is no reason for us not to, and technology-wise we already have nanotechnology on the drawing board. There is no reason that nanotechnology should not, at some time in the future, behave exactly like life does; reproduce and if you believe it, evolve, since Darwinian rules must apply equally to all reproducing entities where variation is possible and there is some form of selection.

In my nanotech-life on the moon scenario, no one has taken up the question: Is it rational to insist that "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."?

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

Dave said:

If comlexity and design in a particular system is found to have an intelligent "cause", does this somehow automatically prove that an omnipotent, invisible, omniscient entity made the earth and life on it in seven days, caused a global flood, sent his son to earth to die for the sins of mankind, and will take the chosen to heaven while destroying the earth? hmmm?

Exactly; no, it does not. But the whole point of an illustration like this is to separate the wood from the trees. The question is, is there even a smidgen of evidence for the existence of God? Some would say yes, much much more than a smidgen. Others like Dawkins say no, not a smidgen. So, leaving out religion and all the baggage that goes with it, it would appear one's position (assuming one has a strong position either way) is based on our personal assumptions. Getting back to little green men, take a rational position - which view would you choose?

Gladring said:

Exactly!

In which case Dawkins' is a de-facto 7 whilst he disengenuously attempts to maintain his scientific credentials as a 6.

In addition to PrimateDave's comments about the moon nano-bots: - the scientist would probably go, well who made the Aliens then? Not to go into great detail right now, but a designed object would look very different to an evolved object.

I don't think there is any way of looking at an object and being able to tell the difference between it being designed and it having evolved, since at the sub-cellular level these life-machines look very carefully designed indeed. Even Dawkins would agree that these things look like they were designed. But since you mention it, when you look under a car bonnet can you say for sure whether it was designed or if it evolved? If so, exactly how?

A scientist would not say "who made the aliens then", since this is unscientific and completely irrelevant to the evidence and question at hand.

So, given that it is not possible to detect the difference between an evolved object and a designed one, and the evidence presented, what would your position be?

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

On assumptions and beliefs, here's a variation of the ol' watch-on-the-beach argument:

Suppose the Russians land on the Moon and discover a vast area of advanced nanotechnolgy in existence. That is, incredibly tiny machines that have the capability to create new nanotech machines like themselves. It turns out the Moon is ideally suited, in fact as far as we know uniquely suited to nanotech robots, providing the perfect low gravity environment and all the resources and energy they need, and they have created, just below the surface of the Moon, a wonderful network of what looks like intelligently designed systems for different purposes. Since the nanotechnology is so far in advance of our own that it is almost incomprehensible, we know it didn't originate with man. At first it appears that the nanotechs must have been created by an alien intelligence.

There is huge controversy over this discovery, and we end up with a great divide of opinion, the extremes of which are those who believe in an alien intelligence and those that refuse to believe. That is, those who believe that an alien intelligence created the nanotechnology to exist on the Moon, and those that believe natural processes are the reason for the nanotechs, because once one, simple, reproducing nanotech machine was up and running (we will trust science to eventually come up with a decent theory for that), natural selection combined with fortuitous mistakes in machine building would surely, over billions of years, result in the extremely complex technology we currently observe, and therefore there is no requirement for a designer, especially as we can see that many different machines have similar parts.

So, there are believers who see evidence of design in the existence of the nanotechs, and there are those contemptuous of the believers, who say "there is not a smidgen of evidence for little green men."

Some scratch their heads at this last statement, and some nod wisely. You?

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.