while searching for online documentaries about jehovah's witnesses (in particular "children of jehovah" by the cbc and "silent lambs" by the fifth estate - neither of which i found) i came across this one, featuring richard dawkins.
free to watch online.
48 mins.
As has been shown over and over, science and religion are not in conflict.
Of course they are not. As the WTBTS says: the Bible does not contradict with real science.
I have been recently cured of epilepsy. The doctor took the demon out. I'm so happy that Jesus came and showed us the way. Thanks God I don't put my trust in that fake science called medicine. Otherwise I would still be sei..z..in.........g....
i found a humorous article on wikipedia about the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:the_truth.
it's funny how jws use this term (like every other cult).
classic loaded language.
I found a humorous article on wikipedia about The Truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth
It's funny how JWs use this term (like every other cult). Classic loaded language. Anyway the article is very deep I would say since it presents some of the ways indoctrinate people think.
What I want to ask you is: After you found out "the truth" (about the WTBTS) have you told anyone directly? What was the reaction? Or have you tried a more subtle aproach?
has anybody that left the jw's become a nihilist?
for me i do not have much faith in much of our man made institutions.since in reality all bound to fail at some point in the future.does anybody else feel this way..
We live, I guess, in a purposeless universe, but there's still hope and beauty in it. Of course there are moments when you don't see it, when you are overwhelmed with personnel problems, but it's there. So I'm rather a humanist, than a nihilist. Carl Sagan’s words always inspired me and helped me keep my hope in humanity.
and here is proof:.
.
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/14/items/bananagodilp/bananagod.ogv.
yesterday, i went out for lunch with my parents when my mother made mention of something she had read in the newspaper about some new discovery of species that went extinct millions of years ago.
she asked my father what method is used to determine the age of something, because of course, this flies directly in face of the biblical account of life on this planet being only a few thousand years old.. anyway, my father related a story that some brother he ran into recently at the assembly told him.
this [unnamed] brother related a story told to him by another [unnamed] elder who knew an [unnamed] circuit serpent who was "really chummy with one of the [unnamed] executives at the royal ontario museum".
They use radiometric dating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods
in my late teens and very early twenties, i was active in jw activities (heaps of service time, ms, etc.
) to most people who knew me, i'm sure i appeared to be a full believer, but with hindsight, my faith was spotty.
i had all of the usual and fairly obvious questions about the organization buried in my mind.
Faith is your belief in something that you cannot demonstrate.=
the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence
We are referring here to the religious faith and not to the confidence in a person or a thing.
in my late teens and very early twenties, i was active in jw activities (heaps of service time, ms, etc.
) to most people who knew me, i'm sure i appeared to be a full believer, but with hindsight, my faith was spotty.
i had all of the usual and fairly obvious questions about the organization buried in my mind.
I could never grasp the faith thing, meaning you have proof than it's a fact, you don't need faith to belive it. You don't have proof, than have a little faith.
Bertrand Russell’s words summarize pretty well my thoughts now:
"We may define ‘faith’ as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
have you ever written a letter to the wtbts asking questions?
who did you address the letter to?
who reads them?
Have you ever written a letter to the WTBTS asking questions?
Who did you address the letter to? Who reads them? Do they get to the GB members? What answer did you got?
Are they being sent back to the local elders, if you write “dangerous” stuff?
yesterday, i went out for lunch with my parents when my mother made mention of something she had read in the newspaper about some new discovery of species that went extinct millions of years ago.
she asked my father what method is used to determine the age of something, because of course, this flies directly in face of the biblical account of life on this planet being only a few thousand years old.. anyway, my father related a story that some brother he ran into recently at the assembly told him.
this [unnamed] brother related a story told to him by another [unnamed] elder who knew an [unnamed] circuit serpent who was "really chummy with one of the [unnamed] executives at the royal ontario museum".
Dawkins answers similar question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx3XmlR7XKA&feature=player_embedded
in looking for a particular reference to carl sagan's the demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark, i stumbled across this website:.
http://www.crossroad.to/q&a/science/sagan.htm.
it appears the page was created as a rebuttal against carl's book.
Philosophers sould stick to philsophy and scientists to science.That was the case a century ago, but now science and philosophy go hand in hand. Take a look at the works of Sam Harris (neuroscientist and philosopher) or Dan Dennet (philosopher and cognitive scientist). Only by knowing how the mind works philosophers can express opinions on why we think the way we do.
I remember Carl's Tv series "Cosmos", at least I think thtat was the name, it was awhile ago, LOL !
Science should stick to science and allow science to speak for itself.The Cosmos was one of the greatest scientific series ever made. Sagan explained deep principles using rich but simple language, accessible to every human. His role in the promotion of science was enormous. It also explains why science competes with religion today. I would suggest PSacramentoto watch it again . I think everyone should watch it at least once, religious persons to see how scientists think and science fans for sher pleasure. Till them enjoy a short glimpse of Carl Sagan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0&feature=related
Anyway I think all of us agree with Sagan's quote: Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.