DJS

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 2,933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DJS

• 
  371

  Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

  by QC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

  this is a game changer.

  the bomb!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  QC,

  And to see how silly your premise statement that people are finally awakening, I have included 2 year old gallup data about the beliefs of Americans regarding evolution. It took me all of 5 minutes to find this; maybe if you actually thought about what it is you are trying to prove and then provide proof of it we wouldn't be so harsh. So again, if the theists/creationists are in the majority (by a lot), what point are you trying to make about 'awakening?"

  To quote 2 famous 20th Century philosophers (Simon and Garfunkel): "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Now go away QC and take a research class on how to academically and objectively research a topic to support your defniitive statements (which should be few and far between in ANY analytical or academic paper anyway, which is why scientists use words like "suggest" when they discuss the results of SCIENTIFIC observations) BEFORE you make definiitive statements about it. I'm an ex college prof and taught research classes in addiiton to lots of other courses. I red-lined everything students wrote that wasn't supported by the best empirical academic data they could find. It is an opinion, and opinions have no real place in serious debate, unless you qualify it as your opinion (which kinda sorta indicates that you are open to change your mind). You of course, aren't

  From a 2012 Gallup Poll:

  Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention. As the graph below shows, the percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years. The percent of Americans who believe in evolution has also increased by 6 percent over the last 30 years while the percent of Americans who believe in theistic evolution has decreased by 6 percent over the same time period.

  

  Regular church attendance is strongly positively correlated with believing in creationism, and negatively correlated with believing in theistic evolution and evolution. Among those who attend church weekly, two-thirds believe in creationism, 25 percent believe in theistic evolution and a mere 3 percent believe in evolution.
• 
  371

  Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

  by QC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

  this is a game changer.

  the bomb!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Let's see QC, you started this post and now you wait a week after the last post to have a final say. Is that it? I followed the conversation and couldn't/wouldn't in a thousand years arrive at your conclusions. So the Amazon rating is the trump card in this argument? I'm really unsure of what it is you are trying to state.

  And just to what are those taking the Amazon poll awakening? The 4.2 out of 5 who would be attracted to this book are likely the choir or the amen corner They probably didn't need awakened; it just reinforced a belief, which is why you likely made this weak post a week after the real discussion was completed.

  It is also clear that you didn't really read any of the dialogue or arguments as to why this isn't science. I will make a note to ignore all future posts from you an others (i.e. Rose) who try to proselytize and who completely ignore facts.
• 
  82

  Are YOU a Believer, Atheist, Agnostic, Active JW or WHAT?

  by Greybeard in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .

  what are you now and what were you?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  I can understand going back to the JWs if you have family; otherwise, I think it insane. Hedging your bets in case they are right and you want to survive the big A? I'm embarrased. Humans have so much more potential.
• 
  82

  Are YOU a Believer, Atheist, Agnostic, Active JW or WHAT?

  by Greybeard in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .

  what are you now and what were you?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  As all of you should know by now, I'm an atheist. And it was a very long journey, not any reaction to JWs, the WT or anything else. It was a lifelong analytical sojourn. Nothing else makes sense to me. Cofty carries our banner. Listen to him. He is the only one typically responding to theist/theological discussions that makes any sense. When I read the responses from the theists, I become nauseous. Anything else I would say would be repeating myself or appearing arrogant to the theists, and you and others can look it up in the archives.
• 
  327

  How do believers defend a god who is going to murder billions and pin it on them?

  by tootired2care in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.

  they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.

  - jerimiah 25:33.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  God is the source of life not death? The professor in me requires you to support your defniitive statement with empirical evidence, preferably peer reviewed academic studies. That is what you feel and believe. Good for you. Qualify it as such.
• 
  28

  A View From Outside

  by Joe Grundy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i never was a jw, and in many ways my interest was academic.

  i have known, and know, some jws and ex-iws and know something of (but not personally) the effects that wtbts has on people.

  the effects, imho, are not positive.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  mrhomme,

  Your post doesn't deserve a response, but I couldn't resist. And please stop cutting me some slack. I reached my current atheist position a LONG time ago after decades of very intense analysis and study. It had nothing to do with anger towards your make believe god or the JWs. I would suggest that most if not all the non-theists arrived at similar conclusions in similar manners. Your post is the most arrogant (and ridiculous) thing I have read on this board to date. All we do is rely on facts; we criticize, deservedly so, ridiculous premises, defnitive statements where no facts are provided and other such drivel by theists or non-theists alked. The non-theists are the only ones on this forum who actually talk about rational data and facts.

  So please. Stop your patronizing and don't cut me any slack. If you wish to discuss any topic in a rational, debating manner. Bring it.
• 
  28

  Syria limited strike and consquences

  by d in

  1. social
  2. current

  what do you think would be the result if we go the u.s goes thorough striking syria?

  i fear that it will drag the u.s into a vietnam like situation and this will hurt our economy..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Simon is spot on regarding the economic 'benefits' of war. That seems to be a reactionary generational statement that sounds good on the surface but isn't true at all (specious). Spending money on bombs rather than butter (or things that will bring lasting benefit to an economy and a social structure) is an opportunity cost. And that money must come from our taxes to continue to support the war machine and all that it consumes. Wars aren't just fought and then everyone throws away their weapons when its over.
• 
  371

  Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

  by QC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

  this is a game changer.

  the bomb!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Tammy,

  I couldn't agree more with what you say, as I don't think we are really in disagreement. My point is that the theists are free to speak amongst themselves and discuss scripture or their version of imaginary friends all they wish. Few of the non-theists bother to enter such discussions. I don't enter them at all. I repsect relgious beliefs and know that religion, appropriately managed, can bring positive things to a person's life. If the topic is clearly religious in nature, it has been my experience on this board that the vast majority of non-theists refrain from entering. That is humility. And respect.

  But when the topic is evolution or a general open forum discussion on similar topics, especially when theists themselves post a new thread or topic on such matters, then bring facts or, as it has been pointed out many times, your 'argument' will be bludgeoned. That isn't arrogance Tammy (and if we do it right we won't attack the one bringing the argument, just the argement itself). It would be arrogant for us non-theists to enter your forums or speciallydesigned bible/god threads to interject. We rarely do it. But theists don't seem to mind blathering on and on and on mindlessly about their theism on topics about evolution, the age or inception of the universe, etc. with god concepts.

  That isnn't debate Tammy. I deeply respect your right to believe. When you bring it out in the open in such a forum, bring facts or be humble enough to qualify your statements thusly: "Although I know I can't actually prove any of this, I believe or feel . . . " I would have a lot more respect for the theists if they did. To start quoting scripture, to speak as if your argument actually has real basis or get in a circular reasoning discussion about 'feelings' about god and jesus ad nauseum should be reserved for your own threads. Otherwise, bring facts or prepare to feel the burn of rational, factual analytical real debate.

  Cofty says this much better than I. But none of the theists seem to listen or hear. But I promise Tammy to stay out of clearly theist discussions.

  It isn't debate when you are talking about your feelings or your beliefs. It is angst, therapy, opining or something similar. And it is arrogantly wasting everyone's time tying to proselytize. I have begun a doctorate program; it will take me a few years to complete. But at the end of that will hopefully be an even better understanding of the need to rationally and analytically examine things. Every thing. If I can't prove it or support it at a very high level by empirical data or scientific observation/study, I discard it.

  It's kind of like the line from Tom Cruise character in a Few Good Men (or something similar) "Don't tell me what we know. Tell me what we can prove."
• 
  371

  Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

  by QC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

  this is a game changer.

  the bomb!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Tammy,

  I was one of those who got a warm and fuzzing feeling from believing, so it isn't arrogance at all. It is simply expressing the obvious. That's how I felt when I was a devout JW believer. As to 'debating,' I wouldn't call anything associated with the theist/non-theist discussions a debate. There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts; and 2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

  Every other tactic or strategy is dishonest. Non-theists can bring up facts about the age of the universe, the planet and the time humans have been on it for example. Theists can discuss a book that has been around for a very very short period of time in comparison that has some historical validity but is primarily full of stories, myths and legends that, while entertaining, are not facts.

  That is why Cofty keeps bringing up the lack of 'facts' when he 'debates' these topics. All we really had when we were JWs is belief. In invisible make believe friends. In stories which couldn't possibly be proved as factual. And the logic behind whether the Bible or the god(s) in the Bible are real? Geesh Tammy, can't we move beyond that? It isn't rational. It doesn't stand up to the facts. It only requires belief, which is one step up in the evolutionary ladder for scentient beings. I only believe in what can be proven, or damn near proven, based on scientiific analysis and empirical data. That's it.

  And once former JWs start talking about scripture or god or jesus or the bible in terms of a serious debate about the universe, the non-theists want to scream. Keeping those topics to yourselves while you discuss all things JW and Bible would allow you to talk amongst yourselves. Non-theists rarely would join your conversatioins. But when you venture out into the world of rational, support your argument by facts discussions, it isn't going to be pretty. And you will never ever have anything approaching what would be considered a 'debate' in the empirical sense. I feel. I believe. I think. I know. I can prove. That's the continuum. Believing can occur without any thinking process. No serious 'debate' can occur with chimps and others who haven't moved any further steps beyond the feeling/reactionary beginnings of our evolutionary ancestor caves than to 'believe.' Because no one can ever prove the existence of make believe creatures, legends and fairy tales. But believe me Tammy, if that changes and your god - or anyone elses - finally makes themselves CLEARLY known (and please don't give me any talk about how he is clealry known in the wind, or nature or blah blah blah) I will change my view.

  And I will say it again; I am simply amazed at the ex-JWs who want to hold on to a failed belief system. It hurts to take down the wall; I know. I did it. But down it came. And I am happier and freer than ever and would never ever go back in a million years to the 'belief' of make believe creatures, arguing scripture and other such nonsense. Arrgghh! We KNEW we had the 'truth' as JWs. We just KNEW it. Well, guess what. We were wrong. Be humble and admit it. I was wrong. I was a dumb-ass. I learned from it and moved on. I didn't stay a dumb-ass by thinking that there was some other version of the 'truth' out there or that my 'lord' or 'savior' or 'god' or 'bible' had something for me or could be 'found' in any manner. Didn't the JWs teach us anything?
• 
  371

  Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

  by QC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.

  this is a game changer.

  the bomb!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DJS

  Cofty,

  As usual well stated. Theists however aren't likely to let something as trivial as facts get in the way of their cherished beliefs. Even if all of the rational scientific data did not exist, if anyone took a giant step back and truly and intelligently analyzed the whole deity thing in light of the age of the universe, the (supposedly) ONLY guidebook provided by such deity (geesh, really? I mean REALLY) and the ridiclousness of the entire premise he or she would quickly come to the same conclusions that we non-theists arrived at a long time ago.

  But believing gives them something warm and fuzzy; its kind of like a securiity blanket. Still, I know what you say about the potential to help others, but you, dear sir, are a better man than I. I have no patience for utter stupidity and even less for misplaced arrogance, all of which the theists express. If you truly have it, bring it. If not, show some humility. Or shut the eff up.