Posts by Island Man

24

Why Evolution Is True--something that scares me

by DS211 in

jw
friends

so im reading "why evokution is true" by coyne and the page im on is talking about darwin and natural selection:.

"but natural selection was also the part of evolutionary theory con- sidered most revolutionary in darwins time, and it is still unsettling to many.

selection is both revolutionary and disturbing for the same reason: it explains apparent design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesnt require creation or guidance by supernatural forces.

Island Man

But seriously there are mountains of evidence to blast holes through the standard evolutionary naturalistic worldview paradign.

It seems that way when one relies on religious, pro-creation sources for information disproving evolution. Much of this so-called evidence is arrived at by distorting the facts about the teaching of evolution and then presenting facts that discredit the misrepresented version of evolution - the classic strawman fallacy. Then there's the mountains of fallacious reasonings that lead to flawed conclusions - all of which seem very plausible to someone unschooled in the area of critical thinking and lacking in critical knowledge on the subject of evolution. It has been my experience that most theists who disbelieve evolution and think it's just a theory (as in "speculation") without any evidence behind it, are actually very ignorant of the subject of evolution, having relied only on flawed anti-evolution sources for their information, having done little or no independent research into the theory (as in "scientific theory") of evolution. I know this because I was once such a person myself. You will not get the entire, truthful picture of the theory of evolution from anti-evolution sources. They have a vested interest in misrepresenting the facts on the subject. You have to study the theory of evolution and all the evidence it's based on from non-religious scientific sources. Then your eyes will be opened to the distortions and quackery of those who discredit it.

Here's a good 50 min video detailing the numerous different lines of evidence that all points to evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

35

Earthly Organization Reset - What Would You Do?

by committeechairman in

i've been reading and posting comments on this site for a while now (about a year) and the comments i see indicate that many who are here have good ideas about what would be required if either (1) jehovah's witnesses were completely reset and the whole framework of belief and organization were started over or (2) if a completely new organization were built.

this assumes, of course, that you believe god exists and that he is interested in human affairs (i know some of you don't).

it also assumes that you do not believe that the "heritage" of jehovah's witnesses has such great weight and importance that it precludes putting all beliefs and procedures on the table to examine them and change them if necessary.. given all this, what do you believe should be the beliefs and organization of true worship today?

Island Man

The mandatory doctrines that JWs should be required to agree on should be limited to only those matters that are explicitly taught in the bible and that are not based on twisting texts out of context and injecting human speculation and assumptions into their interpretation. Doctrines like the 1914 invisible presence/seven gentile times and the 1919 appointement of the faithful and discreet slave, should not be taught as bible-based truth, let alone be grounds for charges of apostasy for those who reject them.

In keeping with the above, blood transfusions should be a conscience matter since the scriptural prohibition on blood obviously had the eating of blood in mind. There is no way to know for sure that Jehovah intended for it to apply to blood transfusions and it is not unusual for biblical laws to have exceptions for extenuating circumstances. (Think of the situation with the daughters of Zelophehad as one example). Thus, one cannot claim that prohibition on the eating of blood naturally means that blood transfusions are prohibited. It should thus be a matter left up to individual consciences. However, the prohibition on the eating of blood is explicit.

JWs should be permitted to have differences of opinion on matters not explicitly taught in scripture provided that they do not contradict what the scriptures explicitly teach and provided that they do not look down on others of a different opinion or seek use their different opinion as a cause for creating divisions or sectarianism.

The bible should in deed and in truth be the main textbook that JWs use, and it should be studied contextually - not topically. They should cease the regular publication of the myriad of literature which are wearisome to the flesh and take time away from studying the actual bible - devoid of the fallible commentary and reasonings of men. (Ecclesiastes 12:11,12)

Input from the membership in the matter of correcting errors in doctrine, should be welcomed by those in leadership position. Issues brought to the attention of the leadership should be conscientiously investigated and corrected.

What the bible actually says should always be the final authority on matters. Obedience should not be blind but based on the bible's authority. Unity should be based on what the bible actually says - not one interpretations of men.

Boasting that JWs are the only true religious organization and associating with them alone is necessary for salvation should be deemed an arrogant, disgusting load of haughty crap and be forever rejected.

The name Jehovah's Witnesses should be rejected are replaced with the name Christians - just Christians and nothing else.

The organizational structure should be as outlined in the bible without the extrabiblical hierarchies like governing body, district overseer, circuit overseer, etc. There should be no organization beyond the scripturally outlined congregation arrangement.

A person can only be expelled for the reasons explicitly stated in the bible and for no other reason. A disfellowshipped person should not be permitted to attend the meetings (given that first century meetings were held in private homes and expelled members were "removed from the midst" of the congregation and were not allowed entry into the meeting home. See 1 Corinthians 5:13 and 2 John 10). Repentant individual should be welcomed back without long waiting periods.

Whenever an a case of child abuse is reported to the elders it should always be reported to the police - regardless of how many material witnesses there are to the incident. If the victim is the only witness then the results of the police investigation and trial can be viewed as the second witness and be used to determine whether or not to expell the wrongdoer.

Minors should not be baptized.

32

Watchtower Study Science Class 101

by CaptainSchmideo in

jw
friends

so, i am reading facebook today, and someone posts this little doozy on her page:.

just got done with watchtower study science class 101. so ya know how when u look at a rainbow it reminds u of jehovah's promise never to destroy the earth with a flood.

we should probably do the same thing when watching the beautiful displays of the northern lights .

Island Man

What I found really stupid about their claims that Jehovah purposefully designed the atmosphere and the magnetic field to serve as a shield is this:

1. According to the bible, when Jehovah originally created the earth, there was an outer layer/ocean of water surrounding the earth above the atmosphere. (Genesis 1:6-8; 2 Peter 3:5) That outer "shell" of water would have done a far better job at shielding earth from both meteors and the solar particles so as to negate the idea that Jehovah originally intended the atmosphere to serve as a shield.

2. There are other planets with denser atmospheres and stronger magnetic fields than earth's. Did Jehovah design those planet like that to protect intelligent life living on those planets? The WTBTS does not believe that there is any intelligent natural extraterrestrial life out there so the fact that an uninhabited planet can have the same features demonstrates that it is fallacious to assume that those features were specifically designed for the purpose of protecting life on earth. Earth just happens to be one of perhaps many planets with these features.

3. While earth's atmosphere does destroy smaller meteors before they get to the surface, it is incapable of stopping the larger ones like the one that struck Tunguska Russia back in the 1910s (I think) and one that can wipe earth most if not all life on earth. Why would Jehovah build an inadequate shield? But there's more: Earth's atmosphere actually makes large meteor strikes more damaging! Think of the one that struck Russia just about a year ago. It was earth's atmosphere that caused it to explode before striking the ground! And it was Earth's atmosphere that served as a medium to transmit the shock wave that caused damage to property and injury to persons.

The question that mindless JWs should be asking is this: In the first place, why did Jehovah even think of positioning earth and asteroids/meteors such that their paths occassionally cross?

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

Island Man

Waging war against innocent civilians is amoral. I would argue that the plagues in Exodus are amoral. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is nauseating. The existence of slavery is despicable. There are so many Bible stories that give me pause. To ignore the problem is silly. The worst thing we could is based our present law on such concepts.

The Bible's depiction and treatment of women is wrong. Our present laws are not based on these stories. When you read the Old Testament, I would venture that our laws today are a repudiation of these stories.

You can say that again, Band on the Run!

12

Glaring terminological inexactitudes in this week's Watchtower study farticle!!

by Island Man in

check out the watchtower's erroneous definitions/descriptions of evolution and creationism in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively on page 7 of the october 15, 2013 watchtower:.

"in its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously.

"on the other hand, fundamentalists of christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old.

Island Man

farticle

Hilarious! That will be going in the next edition of the Apostate Dictionary.

Don't credit me for it, Rebel8. I learned it from an old post by Billy the ex-Bethelite.

10

The Watchtower Society is guilty of 'special pleading' on an ever more desperate scale

by yadda yadda 2 in

special pleading is a form of fallacious argumentation and faulty logical reasoning.

it occurs when someone is exposed as wrong but rather than admit they were wrong they dream up some rather pathetic and weak excuse for why they are still correct.

one's pride is just too hurt to admit one is wrong.

Island Man

Would these also be forms of special pleading on their part:

The Watchtower refuses to acknowledge that it made false predictions in the past, during the Russel and Rutherford years, saying that it was just a case of having wrong expectations, not wrong predictions. They engage in semantic games to excuse their obvious wrongs.

If you look in the Reasoning book under the section on False prophets you would notice that Deuteronomy 18:21,22 is suspiciously absent from that entire section! They discuss every other way of identifying false prophets but those two verses. Special pleading by glaring omission?

Another example would be claiming they are spirit directed but not spirit inspired. Is there really a difference? They claim to be directed by God's spirit so that they can use fear of God to manipulate the membership into obeying them and accepting their teachings. But when their predictions or teachings prove wrong they would say well we never claimed to be inspired so you can't accuse us of being false prophets. We're just imperfect men. In other words the term spirit directed gives them justification for demanding the obedience of all (practically as if they were inspired) but it allows them to absolve themselves of responsibility and the charge of false prophesy, when they fail.

8

Musings

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

apropo of nothing, i just wanted to share some thoughts.

i have started reading and posting here recently.

i have previously mentioned that i am an active jw, an elder who conducts the wt study.

Island Man

Maybe you can speak to the body of elders letting them know of your concern about the well-being of your wife - that you think she needs more of your support and attention than you can now give her while serving as an elder with all the responsibilities you currently have. They really are in no position to question your evaluation of your wife's needs as you are in a better position to evaluate her needs than they are. Let them know that you don't wish to step aside as an elder but you really do need to give more attention to your wife. Maybe they'll offer to cut back on your work load. If not you can resign reluctantly. They can't force you to serve. While elders have a responsibility toward the congregation and that would sometimes call for sacrificing some time he would normally spend with family, an elder's service should never be at the detriment of the well-being of others in his household.

38

Bible Has Problems, Yet Its One Verse Can Solve All Our Problems!

by abiather in

science shows that humans have been living on earth more than 6000 years (contrary to ot chronology).

again inconsistency is pointed out in nt too which says jesus who did countless good worksincluding control over forces of nature and even death itselfyet people killed him, just like killing the duck that lays golden egg!.

despite such inconsistencies, a single verse in the bible can solve all our problems: don't call anyone on earth 'father,' because you have only one father, the one in heaven.

Island Man

Wow, Adam! We might have to resort to some form of sign language then

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

Island Man

I think the arguement is that without an objective foundation (God's law) then all attempts to outline "moral regulations" are subject to the bias or lack of bias in those making the laws.

We don't need 'God's law' for an objective foundation of morality. In fact, many of the codes found in the bible are considered in today's society as being atrocious! But in the ancient society of bible times they were considered acceptable. So if anything the bible actually shows that even its sense of morality is tainted by bias - the bias of the brutish, mysogynistic culture of ancient times. Now imagine if christians were beholden to accept all of the law in the OT of the bible as God's objective, unchanging law. We would be owning slaves, stoning adulterers to death, etc. Aren't you glad our sense of morality has grown over time as we have grown in knowledge?

Humans can determine - and have always determined - what kinds of conduct are proper and improper by studying the results of such conduct on the individual and the society as a whole. Those forms of conduct that have been proven to be detrimental to the individual and society is deemed improper. When humans wrote religous texts they incorporated those moral codes into them and used to threat of God's wrath to scare people into following them. The bible - religion - is not the source of objective morality but only a means used by religionists to motivate others to follow the pre-existing moral code.

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

Island Man

So then, since you threw the example of pedophilia out there, what exactly does 'God's law' have to say on the subject of pedophilia? Can you cite a scripture where God-given morality explains God's views?

You cannot, since the Bible doesn't offer any details.

But the Quran does speak about Mohammed marrying underaged females . . . Which brings us to the next question that he hasn't considered, Adam: whose version of 'God's Law' do we use - the Bible, the Quran, The Book of Mormon? The NWT? (sorry, I just had to. )