Posts by David

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

David_Jay

SAHS,

But we mustn't delude ourselves either due to a distaste for worship of deities.

Religion is not always based around a cult of worship, nor do they all include deities or even an afterlife eschatology. Jainism for example is a humanist form of religion with no deity. The Jewish Sadducees as well many Jews today do not believe in an afterlife, and even those who do see no relevance in living with it as a goal in mind. Buddhism is a religion that seeks to free a person of all notions of and desires for eternity and has no central deity for worship.

Religion is not the opposite of atheism. It is a cultural system built around a set of mores and convictions that are employed to find the reason or explain one's place in the universe. While often employing ritual, these systems can be void of deity worship or seeking for the eternal.

Some who are (with good reason) done with religion often make general assumptions about religion as faulty as the credulous faith of some relgious people because of their failure to recognize that their own views can be subject to the same prejudices, ignorance, and/or simple emotion that in different forms can likewise cloud the thinking of "believers." When we fail to accept that being without religion cannot automatically prevent us from falling subject to the same process of self-delusion that is common to humanity, we might also fail to center our current state on a less than faulty conclusion.

Believing and keeping in mind that there is always a possibility that we can presently be mistaken in our current convictions is what got not a few of us in trouble before. We should always be prepared to improve our views and refine them. While not implying that this makes those who have chosen atheism or a new relgion after leaving the Watchtower in a position where we must now change our current views once again, no set of conviction excuses us from believing we are suddenly free from being capable of deluding ourselves becuase we are not adopting this particular view or that other one.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

Fisherman,

Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.

You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."

There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.

The theory of evolution is that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable characteristics or even behavioral traits. It's that simple.

You, yourself, evolved. You went from being a sperm and an ovum to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant. That infant didn't just get large and grow into a giant baby. You went from a baby to a child to an adolescent to an adult. This pattern is called "evolution."

This pattern of evolution is not merely experienced individually. All living organisms seem to come from a common source. The pattern life leaves behind that has been discerned is an evolving pattern, connecting what are now varied species together.

Thus ends the basic model. It doesn't explain how the process started, claim that it required direction or that direction wasn't needed, support atheism or theism. Life has left a pattern behind, and the data shows what is explained in the model.

But I will tell you what. I am sure you deserve to explain this pattern that biology claims supports evolution. Explain to us your scientific theory, have it independently validated by disinterested parties like all scientific theories are and explain it to us. Since models neither validate religion or atheism, no one here on this board will complain if you explain things according to the scientific method. If the evolution model is wrong, then what is the correct way to explain what life's historical pattern demonstrates?

24

Most Translated Website

by Pubsinger in

wt claims their website is the 'most translated' and claims over 750 languages.

but in the drop down language menu there are only about 50. so where are the others?

David_Jay

Applause and an "amen" to that, Sparrowdown.

It doesn't matter how many languages they translate things into. Translating "crap" into Spanish still leaves you with "caca."

24

Most Translated Website

by Pubsinger in

wt claims their website is the 'most translated' and claims over 750 languages.

but in the drop down language menu there are only about 50. so where are the others?

David_Jay

What does it matter how many languages their website is translated into?

Other religions don't make their members all over the world rely on just one website or on the Internet for that matter. So their "pride" in the number of languages means nothing.

The largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, does not used the web as a major means to educate their members or the public. That is still done at the parish level, with real people, real classes, and with real books you don't have to download (but you can get them in e-reader format).

They print news papers, magazines, have many television networks (not channels, networks), radio networks, radio stations, tv stations, and several streaming networks.

Every language group is divided into episcopalities or national groups, each one of these has their own website (for example, for USA Catholics it is USCCB.org), and each of these is divided in to diocesan territories (with their own websites, newspapers, magazines, often with their own radio and tv stations) further more divided into parishes and parish groups on the neighborhood level.

All the myriad of language groups get severed directly from the parish roots on up. They don't rely on just one central website. Could you imagine the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world all using just one central website? Is there a computer network that could handle that type of traffic, supplying missals, hymnals, educational books, study materials, lectionaries, prayer books, copies of the Liturgy of the Hours, etc., etc., etc., to every Catholic on the planet like the JWs lean on their little website for the comparatively tiny dumbed-down crumbs they offer? Don't forget Bibles on top of all that, for each language group in the world. The Catholic Church also serves every single language group in the world, far more than the JWs.

And what about those countries, language groups, cultures and areas that don't use computers or the Internet? The RCC doesn't need them. They still do all their world ministry without having to go to one central website. And no member of the RCC on the planet has to buy an iPad or e-reader to go to Mass, read a Bible, or pray to God. And you don't have to donate for any literature either. If you are poor the RCC will feed you, clothe you, medicate you, and not require you to join or even believe in God to benefit from their ministry, let alone tell you to go to any website for more info.

And according to JWs, the Catholic Church is under the control of Satan the Devil. I guess Jehovah decided to phone it all in on a website becuase he couldn't compete or be bothered.

"Our website has been translated in more languages than any other!" So?

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

For those who have a hard time accepting that analytical methods have a vocabulary that differs from the vernacular, let's compare the use of words from critical document analysis (as used in Biblical study) and note the differences between vernacular usage (marked with a "v") and the critical document usage (marked "d"). We already compared...

1. MYTH: v. False story. d. Origin narrative.

2. FABLE: v. Fictitious tale. d. An apalogue or short story with a moral.

3. LEGEND: v. A popularly believed story that cannot be verified. d. A moral derived from the character of a historical person, usually set in a novela or fictional setting.

4. NOVELA: v. Short fictional story or a serial "soap opera," popular in Latin television. d. A legend based on a historical person or event, set in a particular genre that works as a device to tell the story

5. APOCALYPTIC: v. Having to do with the end of the world or a destructive end in general. d. A narrative genre in which political critique or intrigue are disguised as symbolic oracles (prophecies) from a divine source.

This is the way methodologies work. They have a language all their own. Often methodologies are using terms in their original sense whereas vernacular speech takes them and gives them a secondary meaning, "apocalyptic" being a popular example.

Some may not like the fact that analytical methods use terminology in ways that differ from the vernacular, but this has been the way of speech for generations. Languages generally have a "formal" means of address and a more relaxed "common" speech.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

Cofty is correct in calling evolution a "fact," because of the fact that it is a "scientific theory."

The terminology in analysis is merely different than our vernacular speech. In the scientific method when one establishes a "fact" they have what is called a "working theory," which means a validated observation. In everyday speech that is what we call a "fact."

Most of us are not scientists, and even the most analytical of among us speak in the vernacular. For instance, whereas "fact" in everyday speech is equal to "scientific theory," the everyday use of the word "theory" in science is "hypothesis."

Analytical methods use terms differently than they are employed in everyday speech. Similar to the use of the word "theory" and it's different meanings in science compared to the vernacular, critical Biblical analysis uses the word "myth" in a different way than used in everyday speaking. A critical "myth" is a story explaining how something came to be employing narrative devices, a story of origins. In everyday speech we use the word "myth" to mean a "false" report. But a critical myth is neither necessarily false nor fact, it's just a tale of the origins of this or that.

So when one speaks in the vernacular it is correct to call evidence a "fact." When speaking in scientific terms it is the "theory of evolution."

17

God & universe #1 - God's position and authority

by Anders Andersen in

while thinking about the nature of god, i suddenly thought of something else: how jw speak about god in relation to the universe.. they say that.

jehovah created the universe.

destroying satan and answering the questions that were raised in eden will restore peace and unity in the whole universe.. .

David_Jay

Mephis,

This is not new information to me. I learned it in elementary school during the 1970s. My parents, unlike the rest of my family, were Catholic, and details like this fine academic you mention are basic to Catholic Bibles in the footnotes.

It is also taught in the intermediate level of Hebrew School to children. We Jews know much of our religion and culture comes from the world which we sprang. Passover, for instance, is well-known in Jewish culture for being pre-Exodus.

The problem is that JWs teach a literal interpretation of the Scripture which does not match the understanding of Jews and those in Christendom. It may be "new" and "shattering" to exJWs, but it was the stuff of primary education for someone like me who went to religious private schools.

9

Article: "Why God Won't Go Away" (Contains an example of a JW) An excellent read!

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://committingsociology.com/2016/01/15/transcending-religious-ideas-is-easy-transcending-religious-thinking-is-hard/.

why god won’t go away.

january 15, 2016 john faithful hamer .

David_Jay

Nicolaou,

Not being "Joe Average" is often what makes a person move beyond the elementary positions of atheism vs. theism, feeling they need to speak up every time something is said about this subject or that.

I subscribe to principles of the transconvictional movment wherein arguing about or declaring life is all about what one believes regarding God or a lack thereof is not as important or irrelevant compare to merely living out what one is. So to some people it is "Joe Average" who sees discussing that old "this conviction vs that conviction" argument boring, a waste of time, immature.

I personally don't expect people to get along. I have every reason to expect people will always find a reason to nit pick others to death, be angry with others who have different convictions, want to destroy or at least hurt that which they are ignorant about, steal, murder, etc. People will only be convinced when they want to be and not when they are not willing to change their views. People love to argue and prove themselves right and another wrong even if they aren't.

That may be your cup of tea, but there will always be somebody out there who finds delight in making you feel insignificant for your views. I try never to give them that satisfaction, and never to be that person to another, and sometimes the only way to do that is skip the discussion altogether.

38

Why was it so hard for Jesus to convince the Jews that he was the Messiah???

by James Mixon in

??????

?

David_Jay

Right, kaik, and this statement is not about the issue of who is Messiah, whether Messiah is a real person, whether it is this guy or that girl or any of that.

The statement even clearly spells out it is not about reconciling Judaism with Christianity either. It clearly states that that there are many views both sides may never be able to reconcile, ever.

The statement is about how many Orthodox Jews for the first time are declaring that Christianity is part of "tikkun olam" when previously it was viewed not of divine origin and thus an obstacle to that particular redemption.

17

God & universe #1 - God's position and authority

by Anders Andersen in

while thinking about the nature of god, i suddenly thought of something else: how jw speak about god in relation to the universe.. they say that.

jehovah created the universe.

destroying satan and answering the questions that were raised in eden will restore peace and unity in the whole universe.. .

David_Jay

Memphis,

I was only speaking about what Judaism has to say about itself. I personally have no investment or interest.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay