Posts by Saename

11

Evolution is a Fact #40 - What Use is Half an Eye?

by cofty in

creationists often refer to the words of darwin when he pondered the evolution of the complex eye.

he said that to suppose that the complex eye evolve by natural selection seems "absurd in the highest possible degree".

what they always ignore is that darwin went right on in the very next sentence to propose how the eye could have evolved and that numerous gradations must exist between the simplest light detecting organs and the complex vertebrate eye.. in the 150 years since darwin published his book not only have those gradations been discovered in the natural world but the very genes that build the eye have been discovered by science.

Saename

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

Saename

Wait, what? We have a creationist here?? I'll watch the video when I'll be bored enough...

Ozymandias Ramses II

by Saename in

i just learned that ozymandias ramses ii (a philosopher who discusses philosophy on youtune―for example, with matt dillahunty from time to time) was raised by jehovah's witness parents!

that was a surprise!

i love this guy; he is so goddamn articulate!.

Saename

I just learned that Ozymandias Ramses II (a philosopher who discusses philosophy on Youtune―for example, with Matt Dillahunty from time to time) was raised by Jehovah's Witness parents! That was a surprise! I love this guy; he is so goddamn articulate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9b0cA9MMU

24

Last Memorial Experiences

by NoviceLocs14 in

i'll share mine first.... i had never missed a memorial for at least a quarter of a century of my life.

i was kind of raised to believe that missing the memorial was a sin in itself.. by 2013 memorial season, i was missing most of my meetings (even though i was still technically part of my foreign language congregation), and i had just come off the pioneer list.

i still made plans to attend the memorial (god forbid if i missed that lol).. i knew that typically our memorials were around 9 pm, since we usually got last priority (being a foreign language hall and all).

Saename

The most recent memorial was actually the first memorial I missed since I had become an atheist (or a non-JW.) It was nothing spectacular, really. I got an invitation in the mailbox; my mother and my brother attended but asked me why I wouldn't. I said I no longer believe in god, and we had an argument about the existence of God and evolution. None of the Jehovah's Witnesses cared enough to visit me and encourage me to go. I wouldn't attend anyway as by that time, I had become too interested in philosophy (epistemology and logic) and science. I found out too many things to believe in a god without evidence, especially the god of Jehovah's Witnesses or any other denomination of Christianity.

What I still wonder about is how Christians who believe in evolution can reconcile the original sin with science. The only answer I find satisfactory is that there never has been a perfect human (or any perfect, living thing for that matter.) God must have created humankind (by directing the process of evolution—but even that is problematic as natural selection doesn't need god at all) sinful in the sense that we have been aging and dying ever since our moment of creation. But then... when was our moment of creation? It would have to be the moment when god gave us the soul, but... every offspring that has ever been born was almost identical to its parents. A chimpanzee never gave birth to a human. A human always gave birth to a human. Evolution is very gradual that way. So... at one point in time, multiple couples of soulless human parents gave birth to human children who now had a soul (new generation)? But what was the difference between the children with souls and their parents with no souls? Moreover, are we to understand that the soulless parents will never go to heaven just because they didn't have soul? Does that mean the children, some of whom no doubt had affection for their parents, will never see their parents in heaven as opposed to the children of these children?

6

I Just Heard a Birthday Song...

by Saename in

so i'm sitting in public area, reading the end of faith (it's pretty clear sam harris is making a case against faith and not some generalized version of islam, so i don't get all those misplaced objections...), and i just heard a group of people sing a birthday song.. i was surprised.

but not because someone was singing a birthday song.

i was surprised because of my reaction.. i wish i could say my reaction was normal, but it wasn't.

Saename

It's amazing how those impulses don't go away just like that... I thought I wasn't the only one.

6

I Just Heard a Birthday Song...

by Saename in

so i'm sitting in public area, reading the end of faith (it's pretty clear sam harris is making a case against faith and not some generalized version of islam, so i don't get all those misplaced objections...), and i just heard a group of people sing a birthday song.. i was surprised.

but not because someone was singing a birthday song.

i was surprised because of my reaction.. i wish i could say my reaction was normal, but it wasn't.

Saename

So I'm sitting in public area, reading The End of Faith (it's pretty clear Sam Harris is making a case against faith and not some generalized version of Islam, so I don't get all those misplaced objections...), and I just heard a group of people sing a birthday song.

I was surprised. But not because someone was singing a birthday song. I was surprised because of my reaction.

I wish I could say my reaction was normal, but it wasn't. I thought about how wrong it is to celebrate birthdays. I mean, what the hell? I'm an atheist. A freaking atheist who studies logic, and this is still in my head? It was a very brief moment, it lasted like a second or two, but it was there. After this second or two, I immediately woke up from this... whatever it was, it felt like a surreal dream.

It helps you realize how deep this indoctrination runs. I've never celebrated birthdays, not even since I left, because I don't have friends. I assume that my reaction was because of that. I haven't concerned myself with birthdays even since I left, so this dislike of birthdays is still in my head. If I were to start celebrating birthdays, this rather subconscious dislike would probably disappear, but things being as they are, I left it alone in my head, and it hasn't been yet disrupted by the influence of reason.

Does anyone want to share his or her own experiences similar to this―about how the impulses you were taught didn't leave you even after you left the religion?

18

Human element seen in 10 commandments

by venus in

i appreciate 10 commandments because they try to ensure law and order in the society.

however, i have problem with introductory statements that say: “you shall have no other gods before[a] me… you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i, the lord your god, am a jealous god, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (exodus 20:3-6).

1) this contradicts the characteristics of god described in mathew 5:44-48 where love is described as loving everyone without thinking whether others reciprocate or not.

Saename

Wake Me Up Before You Jo-Ho - I'm really interested in what the original ancient Greek word for "inspired" meant, when the Bible says that "all scripture is inspired of God." I know Witnesses take this word to mean a literal dictation of thoughts, as though a businessman were dictating a letter to a secretary. I'm going to take a gamble and guess that "inspired" in ancient Greek does NOT mean "verbatim rhetoric", but rather "pertaining to," like an homage to the God it was written about, or something. Anyone know much about this?

The word theopneustos was invented by the author of 2 Tim. 3.16. It literally means "God-breathed" from theos for "God" and pneo for "breathed out." It appears nowhere else in the Bible. For those two reasons, the meaning depends on the context of 2 Tim. 3.16. Hence, it can be debated. (In my book, it's "ironic evidence" against divine inspiration. I should think God would make his meaning rather simple, especially when it comes to something that important―should the Bible be read literally or not? Alas, even the answer to how to read the Bible depends on how you read the Bible... Go figure... God has a good sense of humor, as they say...)

9

Dawkins v Haidt on Evolutionary Advantage of Religion

by cofty in

dawkins uses an interesting analogy comparing religious instincts to a moth's attraction to a candle flame.. dawkins describes religion as an accidental byproduct of a whole range of psychological predispositions such as a child's instinct to believe and obey its parents - he might have mentioned hyperactive agency detection as well.

this is almost certainly true but is religion more than that?

dawkins declines to speculate on whether the byproduct - religion - is an evolutionary advantage, only that the instincts which resulted in religion were advantageous.

Saename

Yeah, I know of The Righteous Mind, and I will be reading it in a month or two, but for now, I don't have time. (I really wish I did!!)

When it comes to the usefulness of religion being the activation of our "hive instinct," I agree. It's also an idea I had. Through a fault of my own, I was too ambiguous and included it in "goodness." Had I known what "hive instict" is, I probably would've been more articulate. But things being as they are, I came up with the idea that religion had the ability to activate the motivation to be cooperative on my own, and since I'm a rather young mind, I'm still prone to being ambiguous, and my ideas are susceptible to being broad in the sense of being indefinite and questionable, especially in areas where my ideas are extremely new. When I'll finally read The Righteous Mind, I'll probably be less ambiguous about those things.

Anyway it's nice to see that I'm heading towards similar conclusions as Haidt. Maybe I'm not such a crappy "philosopher" after all...

9

Dawkins v Haidt on Evolutionary Advantage of Religion

by cofty in

dawkins uses an interesting analogy comparing religious instincts to a moth's attraction to a candle flame.. dawkins describes religion as an accidental byproduct of a whole range of psychological predispositions such as a child's instinct to believe and obey its parents - he might have mentioned hyperactive agency detection as well.

this is almost certainly true but is religion more than that?

dawkins declines to speculate on whether the byproduct - religion - is an evolutionary advantage, only that the instincts which resulted in religion were advantageous.

Saename

This is also a disagreement I had when I was reading The God Delusion. It doesn't seem to be the case that religion wasn't advantageous at all. I agree that it was likely a by-product, but I do think it served an advantage to humans as a social species at the dawn of civilization. And while I'm not sure whether it still serves a purpose, I do think it shouldn't serve a purpose (or in other words, we shouldn't use it for a purpose.) Ever since the Enlightenment, we have evolved intellectually and started to obey reason as the foundation for truth. The problem with religion is that it fosters faith, and faith is unreliable; it's the antithesis of reason. While it can lead to truth, or to goodness, however you may define it, it does so by accident more often than not, and it also leads to the opposite, which in and of itself is a valid reason to oppose religion. This is to say that unjustified belief shouldn't have a place in determining truth ever since we have found scientific (Enlightenment) and logical (4th century BCE) ways to do the same much more reliably.

Now, I do wonder what Haidt's take would be on that. You say he believes it still serves a purpose. But does he think it should serve a purpose? I didn't even know what his position was on the origins of morality until now, so I do wonder what he has to say about that. But for now, I'm too busy reading other books, unfortunately. I wish I could just eat books in order to absorb their knowledge. I once saw a movie where a kid could do that. Indeed, this would be an amazing ability, assuming that eating books wouldn't bring other disadvantages, such as health issues.

180

What is the most bizarre counsel you received as a JW, from a JW?

by Funchback in

there were many addressed to me.

for example, i once had a sister tell me i was gambling because i liked playing skill crane (the machine where you have to try to pick up prizes like stuffed animals) at the arcade.

i then fired back a her: "you saw the r-rated movie 'backdraft.

Saename

I was told that masturbation will make me abusive of women―not only in the sense that I will see them as sexual objects and approach them as such but also in the sense that I will physically and emotionally mistreat and taunt them.