Posts by Apognophos

13

Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

by Gnostic Bishop in

billion + believe in satan.

should all schools be mandated to teach creationism?.

we must save our children from foolish belief in the supernatural.. .

Apognophos

I don't know, I think this could serve as a kind of innoculation if they taught the Bible story besides other culture's creation myths. Otherwise what happens is that (as all of us born-ins experienced) we are taught one set of things at home and then the teachers tell us another set of things, and where they conflict, we accept what our parents taught us.

I remember feeling like my elementary school science teacher was my enemy because she taught evolution. Maybe if they had acknowledged and discussed religious beliefs in school I wouldn't have felt like it was school/science vs. home/religion and would have been able to see how other religions had similar stories to the Bible.

However, one big problem is that the creation story, actually "stories", found in Genesis are not told accurately, but have been been touched up and modernized to accomodate our modern view of the universe. So if they teach the modern version of the story and compare it to stories from ancient cultures like Babylon which have not carried down to this day, those stories will look primitive and the Genesis account will seem more credible.

If the Genesis accounts were taught accurately, as I've discussed in places like this and this, it would not only be in line with the scholarship but it would give kids an alternate view of what their Christian parents were feeding them which would probably help them see how the Bible's primitive stories are subject to re-interpretation.

However I can't imagine Christian parents allowing this kind of education in school because it would seem like an attack on their faith. Teachers are going to have to just continue to encourage critical thinking without actually telling students what it is they need to be critical about.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Apognophos

How could a creator have zero complexity yet create something with complexity?

I already suggested in this thread (a few times) that the creator used himself as material for the universe, either by thinking it up (simulating the universe in his "brain") or reconfiguring his "body" to serve as the universe. This is just a fanciful notion that I don't put any faith in, but it would explain how the universe could be created without an increase in complexity, or at least a significant one.

A created creator? A non-first cause?

Did you not read the rest of my sentence? "It could be that the formation of a creator according to the laws of a different universe was much more likely than the formation of intelligent life on earth". Yes, I am suggesting a creator ex nihilo. My point is that this could be much more likely than we realize if we knew the starting conditions before the creator came about. This is currently unknowable.

Evolution doesn't choose and is never done.

These superficial objections are very tiresome, as well as predictable. Obviously I don't mean that evolution can "choose" something consciously. Are you seriously suggesting that scientists don't personify nature when they write about evolution? If you don't think so, shall I dig up some examples from Dawkins et al. for you to read? If you do think so, do you write to them complaining about their terminology, or am I the sole focal point of your attention for some lucky reason?

And I was clearly not referring to the results of evolution as "done". I was referring to a particular point of view, which is why I said "when its 'creations' are looked at as finished products". People do this all the time when they criticize things like the roundabout nerve in the giraffe's neck or anything else that could have been designed better. They are criticizing the result of a process that had a good reason to happen that way because it developed in logical steps through successive prior organisms.

The point I am making, and which risks getting lost in pedantry, is that the concept of a god, when looked at as a finished product, seems complex, but that doesn't mean it couldn't come about through a simple process, step by step, and possibly one that was more likely than the process which produced intelligence on Earth.

Personally I am dubious that intelligence is so unlikely; it feels to me like it might be a natural result of the same tendency towards complexity that produced the first cell, but that's just a feeling I have without any scientific backup. So instead I am pointing to statements made by some scientists about the unlikelihood of our existence and suggesting that if we knew how the (proposed) creator developed, it could be that the creator is relatively more likely than we are.

17

Nikola Tesla, wireless phone predicted 1909!

by DwainBowman in

i lived in a boarding house near a library for a few years from age 15 to 18. i spent lots of time reading popular mechanics & popular science.

all the way back to their first issues.

when i heard about the gb's claim, and 1922, i knew that someone before had predicted the cell phone.

Apognophos

GrreatTeacher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Death -- the government seized his work because even then they thought he might have created something incredible that they needed to know about, but they didn't find anything novel (the conspiracy theorists will say that they took his death ray, though, and I suppose they are keeping it in a warehouse for a rainy day).

I have to say, he was a smart guy, but nowhere near the demi-god people make him out to be. A fairly good summary of his shortcomings in accepting modern science is listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Views_on_experimental_and_theoretical_physics. I seem to recall that he thought that what scientists observed as nuclear energy was actually electrical energy emitted from the sun and bouncing off atoms.

He was very ambitious and I think his wireless power concept was ahead of its time. Scientists have it working now over short distances, though, and we will probably have some real-world applications of the tech soon. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about being enveloped in electrical fields constantly. I have too much firsthand experience with strong electrical fields already, and know what they can do to the body.

12

Letter to BOE - "Cautions Regarding Shepherding of Sisters"?

by berrygerry in

one gets so used to jw speak.. re-read that question as an outsider.. would the shepherding of sisters be similar to the herding of cats?.

.

Apognophos

While re-reading the title as an outsider, I suggest also pronouncing "Shep-herd-ing" as "Sheep herding" for added effect.

10

My views.

by ivanatahan in

jw
friends

this is more of an introductory post discussing my views and background than anything else, really.. i was, unfortunately, born into this religion.

my mom was, and still is, a pioneer (or as some call it: "piousneer"), and my father is an elder.

admittedly, up until a few months up to a year back, i was indeed a zealous "servant of jehovah".

Apognophos

Welcome! It's true that the Society's arguments against evolution are dubious and facile. They serve well enough for those who want to keep believing in the religion, though.

On the subject of the organization and on mental issues among Witnesses, I think the two are basically one and the same. The personality of an organization is derived from the founder/leader and trickles down through levels of management. So you have to look at the top and ask yourself what sort of people have led the organization and picked their successors.

The most important were probably Russell (a practicer of numerology, and a celibate though married), Rutherford (an angry, cynical contrarian and egomaniac), Knorr (a cold businessman, also another married celibate), and Franz (a very aloof man who inherited Russell's flair for numerology; a life-long bachelor).

Since the organization is a high-control group (i.e., anti-individual), its followers are expected to adopt somewhat uniform personalities, with an emphasis on subjugating the self and following orders, and holding beliefs which reflect the personalities of the leaders. How could anything healthy come from such an organization? It's no wonder that born-ins are a weird bunch of people. That's besides the fact that the conspiracy-theory folks and assorted societal misfits are drawn to the religion as converts.

10

Those of you stuck in with kids&question about spouse

by All for show in

jw
friends

it is killing me now that i am awake, having kids in school and having to be jws.

birthdays, christmas, thanksgiving, having to go home or be left out because their teachers know they are witnesses and/or have kids from the school in their class or grade.

it's a small town so the other jws in the hall know what's going on since their kids are in the same school.

Apognophos

He says he won't do anything the FDS says that doesn't have scriptural merit

I told him we don't agree with all they say so why do we go there? Then he says I've gone overboard and hate the society.

If he knows about the flaws in the blood doctrine and about the organ transplant ban that both have cost many Witnesses their lives needlessly, he doesn't have any reason to defend the Society. If he doesn't know about those things, why haven't you told him? Personally it just sounds like he doesn't want to leave his comfort zone.

12

Wasn't a letter about the NGO situation read at the Hall?

by Apognophos in

okay, so i've been seeing the occasional comment here and there on the forum that some jws, even elders, do not seem to have heard about the society ever being an ngo.

am i not remembering accurately?

back when this scandal happened (2001?

Apognophos

Thanks for the feedback so far, this is surprising. I seem to recall hearing the letter read as part of the announcements in my congregation at the time. I specifically remember the library access being mentioned. As I was not reading any material critical of the religion back then, that I can recall anyway, I don't think I could be mis-remembering where I heard this.

Years later, I came on sites like this and saw the letter for myself, but I have been under the impression this whole time that everyone heard this letter read in their congregation back in 2001. I wonder if it's because the friends were talking about the rumor in my cong., and maybe in your congregation, sloppyjoe2. [Edit: Island Man beat me to this hypothesis while I was typing.]

10

good question ( sorry about the f word )

by bigmac in

jw
friends

.

Apognophos

Have a look at Dr Richard Carrier's lectures on youtube

I might do that -- I watched another one of his already and it was interesting, but not detailed enough for my liking. I'm planning to get some books on the subject to consider the mythicist case more carefully.

I'm already of the opinion that Jesus may not have said/done most of what's in the Gospels; and if he did live, but almost nothing in the New Testament came from him, then it's about the same as if he didn't exist at all.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Apognophos

Viviane, your logic is indisputable, but I didn't suggest that the complexity of "creator+universe" could be less than just "universe" -- only equal to it, or maybe just a bit more than it (conceivably within an order of magnitude, e.g. creator+universe only being 2x or 4x as complex as the universe alone).

And to recap, Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, so even if the creator makes the picture 10x as complex, this is not necessarily meaningful in estimating probability. After all, complexity is not the sole indicator of probability.

It could be that the formation of a creator according to the laws of a different universe was much more likely than the formation of intelligent life on earth; a number of non-religious scientists have stated that our own evolution could be an extreme fluke event.

We can also see lots of examples in nature where evolution chose to do things in a more complicated way than is necessary, when its "creations" are looked at as finished products. The more complex approach that nature used only makes sense to us once we understand the steps it followed to get there.

10

good question ( sorry about the f word )

by bigmac in

jw
friends

.

Apognophos

Sure, but that's off-topic.