Jesus doesn't matter to Jehovah's Witnesses. Remember, they made him invisible, the one thing that was supposed to make God tangible to Christianity and the world.
You don't have to thank things that are invisible.
the watchtower of december 2015 reports the following reaction of a family with four teenagers in the country of rwanda with the publication of the nwt, and how grateful they were for it.
the wt magazine said: .
things changed when the new world translation in their language became available.
Jesus doesn't matter to Jehovah's Witnesses. Remember, they made him invisible, the one thing that was supposed to make God tangible to Christianity and the world.
You don't have to thank things that are invisible.
not being familiar with either, my question is:.
what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.
i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..
First of all, if you are thinking about going down the road to atheism, you will find support from many here. You can definitely find some with advice on spiritual or religious choices too. Whichever path you are choosing, the idea is that you keep your mind open and your emotions in check as you do.
There are a few points you will hear again and again that are not correct from those who support theism and, yes, unfortunately those who support atheism.
1. EVOLUTION DEBUNKS THE BIBLE. Actually it debunks Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. The creation stories in the Bible are not considered literal by Jews, Catholics, and most non-Fundamentalist groups. The Bible itself doesn't claim the earth is only 6000 years old or that humans literally stole from a tree and suddenly became sinful. These are interpretations, not universal whatsoever, and aren't the views of the majority of Jews and Christians. This is why evolution is accepted by many relgious people as they don't have beliefs contrary to evolution to begin with.
2. EVOLUTION SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It might be acceptable with mainstream Judeo-Christian theology, but the evolution model doesn't naturally fit in with theological concepts or the Biblical narrative. The two are not even concerned with the same things. Evolution explains the manner or pattern life appears to have taken on our planet ("how" things happened) whereas Judeo-Christian religion is largely unconcerned with "how." It endeavors to explain "why" things are as they are, not how they got here. Evolution is about nature, biology, but religion is about philosophical ideas and mores.
3. THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE IS EVOLUTION OR THE NARRATIVE OF THE BIBLE. Not really. That is the way it was polarized by the Watchtower, but neither Judaism nor Christianity are religions based on a book. Both are religions that produced books based on their religions, but they didn't base their religions on books that were already there. The choices that Jews and Christians make regarding views of life thus often exist in a dichotomy since these religions see no scientific explanation regarding creation in its pages. The "Big Bang theory" was developed by a Catholic priest, for example. Charles Darwin was a member of the Church of England and is buried in Westminster Abbey due to his discoveries regarding the origins of life. While it is never done with ease or without problems, these groups don't remain stuck with ancient views on the world.
4. ATHEISTS ARE INTENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF RELIGION AND USE EVOLUTION TO THIS END. While some atheists have a desire to see religion come tumbling down, they are not in the majority. Even those who don't like religion are not hateful of religious people, and most have no problem with you if you are religious and are not intent on trying to convert them. Tolerance and even good relations exist between many atheists and religious persons, and atheists have even fought for the right of freedom of religion and conscience in courts of law and in wars. Evolution is not their plan to destroy religion. Darwin died a confessed agnostic, so the theory was not even invented by an atheist. It often fits in with the views of many atheists because they tend toward a naturalistic approach and logic, but atheists are not required to accept evolution or be concerned with how life came to be in order to be atheist. Atheism is not about how we got here but about not believing in and not worshiping deities.
There is no connection between evolution and atheism or religion either, though people who are promoting their view often claim it as their own. This shows the universality of evolution, its logic, and its reach. It makes sense to the majority of people on earth, atheist and religious. That says something for evolution, for rarely do athiests and religious people embrace the same thing. So whatever path you walk, make sure it includes an honest view of this theory of life.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Slimboyfat,
What is the value of pointing to the words of another? If their value lies only to back up your views, is that not an appeal to authority, a fallacy which undermines your argument?
If it is an axiom you live by, why are you following the words of another like the millions of mindless sheep who follow the Watchtower? If people are to believe your words, shouldn't they be your words and not "copy and pasted" from another?
Back and forth goes the argument. Back and forth like a tennis match with no end or winner. Is it intelligence and wisdom to believe that we now have the answer when the time before we believed we did we were so wrong? Or does not logic dictate that there is more wisdom in choosing more than what everyone else is doing, more than arguing the same old argument like a dog that never catches up with the tail it so eagerly chases?
Or are we so arrogant as to believe we are the One, finally gracing the world with our knowledge, the savior who is come to settle the issue once and for all, endowed with insight and knowledge no other man before us has ever possessed?
But since this is the path some have chosen, I won't interrupt it again. Far be it from me to suggest it is a waste of time and energy to argue what nameless and dead generations before you have debated. I could be wrong, but I believe Einstein would be apropos here when he stated that doing the same thing over and over again in expectation of a different outcome is the true sign of insanity.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
If you hired me to build you a house after I assured you I was the best house builder around, and after investing much of your hard-earned money and a lot of your time, the house I built fell in upon itself, would you hire me to build you another house? Even if it wasn't your house I did a shoddy job on, would any of you hire me to build your home with my track record of such a horrible mistake, even if it was only one horribly-built fiasco I was responsible for? I would be surprised if you did.
Try as one can, there is still no definitive scientific theory of "love" or "loyalty." What you folks are pointing out is not proving "love," but other things associated with what we call "love." If there is such a scientifically proven thing as "love," then what is its agreed upon scientific definition? Who defined the "theory of love" or discovered the "theoretic model of loyalty"? No one. You won't find a Newton or Einstein responsible for these discoveries. These aren't scientific notions, not in themselves.
I do not mean to insult anyone here who have different views than mine. You are no less a person because you are atheist or agnostic or theist. Forgive me where my words seem disrespectful. But at times we struggle to have or find answers when there are none. This is partially due to a characteristic some of us may have in common.
Some of us want very much to be right or have the true view of life and the world around us. Having been in the Watchtower form of religion that abused us with such a facade of truth, it is no wonder we strive for accuracy and realistic logic-based understandings instead of silly notions.
Yet for some of us (obviously not all) we have not moved past the view that we need to be right and that we need to have the truth once again. We had this view as Witnesses, and maybe for some, like me, it has been a character trait not easily dismissed or even recognizable in ourselves. Our desire to be in the "right" religion and have "the truth" is not one universal in the world of religion, though the JWs often left us with the impression that it is. It isn't as widely shared as some of us may have been taught.
Upon leaving the Watchtower we who have this trait may not have let it go. Again we think our current view, be it a new religion, atheism, or agnosticism is the "right" one, and we debate with others who do not share our "truth," even acting as hateful and disrespectful of others with views that conflict with ours similar in fashion to the Witnesses regarding other religions. We might close ourselves off to reasoning others may offer for their convictions, insult them for having these views different from ours, and then use our views as a panacea to supply us with "all the answers we need" in this world.
But it may be that we are just as scared to be without thinking we are "right" or have "the truth," since having "answers" gives us a feeling of control. No convictions, philosophies, or even science can give us all the answers. Just like there is not a religious answer to everything, there is not a scientific answer to everything either. We can't keep trading one "panacea" for another, as there is likely no one "right" way or "truth." That is just another lie of the Watchtower. We can't have the answers to everything. We can't find something that will make us "right" with the correct answers about everything, science included.
And, if we are ex-JWs, we are the last people who should be thinking or declaring we have the right answers, debating with others to prove them wrong and defend our new-found convictions as right. Like the house builder who made a horrible house, our track record with finding the "truth" and thinking we have all the answers is not very good. We should learn that we are not suddenly experts at knowing the right way to go in life just becuase we left one path that was clearly wrong. It doesn't work that way.
Science doesn't always have the answer. You can't always be sure you are right at this point in your life just because you're not a JW anymore and have found atheism or a new relgion or whatever. There may be no definitive right way. But that is no reason to be frightened nor an excuse to think we can't be wrong again where we now stand. We need to be humble because, in all truth, no one in their right mind is going to "hire us to build them a house" with our track record.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Cofty,
Did my wife love me? What's the evidence? What is the scientific theory of love called? What is the model? What is to prove that biological readings and actions of people equal "love"? And what is "love," just a biological or psychological or physical response? Is it less or more? Science has a theory of evolution and gravity, but one for love or one that proves loyalty?
Neither exist. I work in my sheriff's CSI department in forensics. There are no such things scientifically. Prove your statements, your beliefs about love and loyalty. But I tell you now: There is no scientific evidence for them.
And claiming that you don't put faith in something that doesn't exist is nothing, childish. If God is not real, what big thing is it to not believe in that which is not real? Takes no courage either. That's my opinion.
What I think would be interesting is if there was a God and undeniable evidence thereof, and then find a person who doesn't believe in that God. That would be courageous, bold. But to believe that something doesn't exist that doesn't exist is easy. And I think both sides who think it's so import to convince the other they are right is a waste of good life.
This is just a forum. Just giving my opinion. What does it matter to you if I count atheists and theists as fools? I also know there is always the possibility that I can be wrong and that I may need to change my current view. But I don't think many atheists or theists are just as willing to admit the same. Who is the greater fool, the one who argues they cannot be wrong or the one who doesn't argue such a ridiculous thing?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
I wrote the post. The context is clearly about scientific evidence because I begun by speaking about string theory:
A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.
Despite there being scientific evidence for either or not doesn't mean I don't believe in them or require scientific evidence of them to believe in them. People don't always accept things on the basis of evidence.
And you can't produce any kind of evidence or argument to prove either of those things anyway because my beloved died 7 years ago and my dog died last year.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
For me the case is neither atheism or theism (or something in between). To me this is too elementary of a way of looking at things.
A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.
On the other hand I don't buy into the "faith is built on evidence" argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and some theists. "Faith" is supposed to be the opposite of evidence. I can put faith in a friend that they will do something though they have not done it before. The event of what I put faith or trust in has not occurred. Faith in this instance is something that one can take pride in because of it not being based on evidence. Otherwise being out on a limb means nothing.
I think it is a waste of time to argue over something that doesn't exist. I don't argue with others about Bloopadoopawoopa-Kupnta (I just made that up), because such a thing doesn't exist. So what if you believe in it? It's not real.
On the other hand, if there is a God, how is my mentally accepting his existence relevant or important? Even Scripture says that demons also believe in God, but for them it means nothing but a reason to expect adverse judgment. (James 2:19) Mere belief in God doesn't help demons, and allegedly they've seen him! They obviously know God. If the actual knowledge of God cannot save demons, what good is my mere faith in someone I have not witnessed like they have?
If I'm going to be on the fence about the issue, why? It has not been established that other universes can't exist. It has not been established that higher forms of life don't exist. You can't disprove something that has yet to be discovered, and "kinda" thinking something might be out there that can't be understood is, to me, like saying you might exist but you are beyond my understanding. Just because I don't know you're out there doesn't mean you aren't real, and if I met you I am sure I could get to understand you.
People like to argue about "God is real" and "God is not real." I don't care. I don't think convictions or adopting a creed or taking pride that you don't believe in something that you also don't believe is not there (which, if you think about it doesn't make sense to have any pride in) is worth my piddle. That's all childish to me.
It takes no courage or intelligence to reject that which doesn't exist.
Mere faith in a deity doesn't mean you are faithful to the same.
Not taking issue with an issue is like not getting treatment for your cancer because you aren't sure if it will work or not.
I personally have moved on from the whole thing.
we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.
john spong gives his view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.
To add to the information about "colporteurs"...
The whole "colporteur" thing was NOT an invention of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were an invention of the British Bible Society.
When the famed trek of the poor Welch girl, Mary Jones, inspired the first Bible society in the world, those who were hired to sell the British Society's Bibles were called "colporteurs" from a French word, "colportage" which simple means to peddle books. To this day those who sell and distribute Bibles for Bible Societies are called "colporteurs."
The Bible students tried to create their own Bible society in competition with the original and ecumenical ones (which still exist by the way among the United Bible Societies). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was their invention, and they copied everything the bigger non-sectarian societies did, including calling their own salespersons "colporteurs."
The JWs changed the name to "pioneer" when they wanted to "prove" they were not "engaged in a commercial work." The "filling out of monthly reports" are indeed holdovers from the salesman/colporteur days.