Posts by adamah

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

ILuvTTATT, there's many different definitions for species, so a change in a defining characteristic of a species may already make it a new species; however, the usual definition is based on if it's able to interbreed with descendants of the bacteria from which it was derived (the situation is complicated by the fact that bacteria reproduce asexually, or exchange plasmids, etc). I'm sure they're keeping a control of the colony as is was before they started.

BTW, the emergence of a new species and strains is not such a trivial matter if you're a doctor treating a bacterial infection, as you need to know which antibiotic is likely going to be effective against the organism which is causing the infection. Many strains are developing drug-resistance, and the old standby therapies which worked so well in the past suddenly are no longer effective, since the critters have evolved workarounds to the metabolic pathways by which the old antibiotic caused their death. That's the whole problem with hospital-based MRSA infections that you hear about in the news, where super-bugs are evolving "in the wild" due to widespread and rampant use of antibiotics. Thousands of people die annually due to bacterial evolution, even those God-fearing believers who deny the possibility of evolution.

ILuvTTATT asked-

Hi Adamah, or anyone, can you please provide as many possible "missing links" and when they were found?

The old saying in palentology is that every time a new transitional fossil is found, creationists loudly rejoice, since it means that two new gaps are created in the fossil record on either side.

So presenting evidence that satisfies creationists is a non-willing scenario, since it's only becomes an infinite regress; believers constantly move the goalposts, since they're really not engaging in an intellectually-honest manner and not willing to examine the evidence, but only looking for reasons to demand more evidence.

All lines of evolution contain 'missing links' (and are more accurately called transitional fossils), since not surprisingly, not all lineages of organisms have been lining up for millions of years to volunteer to become fossils, as if donating their bodies to science!

Adam

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

Apo said-

There's a certain appeal to only believing what you can observe directly ("Show me the money").

Perhaps scientists should start eating lead-based paint, giving themselves concussions, destroying fossils, breaking lab equipment, etc, so Perry would be more comfortable having to take scientific precepts as articles of faith? I don't get the appeal of that kind of approach to one's beliefs: it's as perverted as the rest of what Jesus passed off as ancient wisdom, but is now recognized as the thought-stopping power of logical fallacy of the paradox: goofiness that only seems wise, but on closer examination, is merely goofy. It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, linguistic prestidigitaion.

I've asked for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what Jesus said that was: 1) ORIGINAL to him AND 2) gave mankind some example ofwisdom that was unknown at the time, and served as something that actually advanced human knowledge (rather than merely serving as flowery words and emotional puffery that made the audience feel good about their current situation, and appealed to their emotional needs for "more").

And once you cut out the flowery poetical waxing responses, there's nothing left but vapid hot gases: the challenge has elicited cricket chirps.

Adam

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

Perry said- That's not science. It can't be replicated, no matter how hard scientists have tried..... and boy have they tried. There always seems to be some "just so" story that accounts for something in the "millions" paradigm, and of course the other consistent feature is that it just so happens that it can't be replicated.

Where'd you get the incorrect idea that science requires replication?

We don't: instead, we need verifiable tangible concrete evidence. In this case, evidence exists in the fossil record, by performing DNA comparisons, protein comparisons (oh, thanks to Dr Mary Schweitzer, a fellow Xian believer who believes in evolution, and is annoyed by YECs like you who ignore evidence to support a goofy idea).

Ironic that you reject evolution by demanding evidence in the form of replication (m-kay, give us a million years: Darwin lived what, 150 yrs ago)? Instead, you're completely willing to accept the stuff found in ancient scrolls containing mythology which is completely DEVOID of evidence (and where MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence exists to disprove the Bible), but you're OK with THAT, relying on what you likely call "faith" (but instead looks alot like nothing more than bullheaded obstinancy from where I'm sitting)?

Adam

28

I find I am Shunning my family !

by Phizzy in

jw
friends

although i really hate the wt/jw shunning policy, which especially huts those who have been df'd, i find i am in a kind of way doing it to my jw family.. i do not include them in anything i do, in my own family gatherings, and i cannot be arsed to inform them of things going on in my family, or to even go and see them, unless really necessary.. this all adds up to a kind of "reverse shunning", and i do feel a twinge of guilt about it, but it is simply how things have become.. do you, fellow faders, find a similar thing happening ?.

adamah

Muddy Waters said-

I don't think you need to be an extremist or a person who "naturally pushes other people away" to become a JW.

No, and that's the point. Of course, I'm not saying EVERYBODY who is a JW is an extremist, just that there's likely an over-representation of those with bonding issues (AKA attachment disorders), compared to the general population.

(And by stretching my words, you're showing a tendency for jumping to extremes yourself: kinda ironic, no?).

The thing is, JWs DO read the message of Jesus' family values pretty accurately to what the Bible actually says, and they don't even try to bury it, or deny it: for them, the scriptures of Jesus saying he didn't come to bring families together but to tear them apart, etc, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, even a badge of honor so they can say, "Well, Jesus warned about this kind of thing and we're paying the price", so they can use it as an opportunity to display their infamous persecution complexes.

It's not all that hard to understand that EVERY GROUP has core beliefs and values; prospective members are going to be attracted to such groups that share their pre-existing principles: that's why ultra-conservative Tea Party types don't recruit for prospective members in big-city slums, why you don't see clear-cut loggers joining the Sierra Club, skin-heads don't join NAACP, etc.

Similarly, there's a profile and mind-set of a typical or average JW who's attracted to the message sold by the WTBTS, and the WTBTS fully-well knows the psychological profile of their target audience.

Flip-side is there's MANY MORE people who COMPLETELY don't fit their profile, and they wouldn't become a JW, even if you held a gun to their heads. It's a rather narrow set of beliefs, and hence why there's only 7 million members Worldwide (out of 7 BILLION).

And of course, there's many different reasons for shunning: sometimes out of self-preservation, other times on religious grounds. In a sense, they are doing it for BOTH reasons: they often truly believe that their surviving A depends on their willingness to shun, and I can't believe there's not some measure of self-awareness of the selfishness of their actions, causing some guilt (AKA 'survivor guilt', except anticipatory). Is it selfish? Sure.

But is it any more selfish than us shunning them, based on OUR own need for self-preservation and maintaining a sense of our emotional and mental well-being?

Adam

28

I find I am Shunning my family !

by Phizzy in

jw
friends

although i really hate the wt/jw shunning policy, which especially huts those who have been df'd, i find i am in a kind of way doing it to my jw family.. i do not include them in anything i do, in my own family gatherings, and i cannot be arsed to inform them of things going on in my family, or to even go and see them, unless really necessary.. this all adds up to a kind of "reverse shunning", and i do feel a twinge of guilt about it, but it is simply how things have become.. do you, fellow faders, find a similar thing happening ?.

adamah

Phizzy said-

But I find that the more I naturally feel a distance from my JW past, the more the JW family are no longer part of my life in the sense that I wish to include them in things that they would not be part of apart from the blood tie.

Much as my non-JW relatives were put in that position by me whilst I was a JW, I find that the JW part of my family is like that now to me, simply not part of my life.

That very parallel, that I am doing to my JW family what I used to do to my non-JW aunts and cousins etc, is what gives me that twinge of guilt, but I cannot find it in me to be better than they are in this regard.

That's it, in a nutshell:

People who are attracted to joining the JWs 'self-select', since for many, the requirement to push away their non-believing family members over theological differences is rather extreme and is a 'show-stopper' for many; they'd see it as too high a price to pay to join a religion (which is ONE warning sign of a cult; trying to control your social interactions outside of the group), since a reasonable question is whether accepting a religion warrants breaking apart pre-existing familial bonds, etc. Most non-believers (and even believers) would say "NO, WAY, JOSE!", since for them, religion shouldn't cause a break in families: that's not loving.

So you'd have to be a bit of an extremist to become a JW, in the first place, since turning your backs on non-believing family is admittedly extreme (UNLESS you have toxic non-believing family members, and are looking for an excuse to avoid them).

But fact remains, many were willing to throw their family members under the bus at some point, and it's not like someone's personality and emotional bonding skills will suddenly change overnight; only the names change, and one gradually becomes more comfortable with an uncomfortable detente. My family dynamics (eg my Mom's relationship with her Worldly family, who lived 2,000 miles away) was a risk factor that partly explains why the JWs seemed so appealing to her: she had an alcoholic parent, and joining gave her an excuse to not return to celebrate holidays, etc. We grew up viewing them as "the others", and it was encouraged.

Adam

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

Perry said- The infamous archaeopteryx isn't necessary for this discussion.

Uh, say what? It may not be 'necessary' (as if you mean to suggest that the evidence of sinosauropteryx fossils is all the evidence you need to see: however, I doubt that is your claim!). However, archaeopteryx is VERY relevant.

In case you're not aware of the history of those who've made the creationist claim in the past, in the 1950's Bible believers pointed to the existence of missing links in the fossil record, pointing to the lack of smooth intermediate transitory forms from one "kind" to the next "kind" (which you likely mean as 'species').

Fine, so in 2013, we now HAVE many more examples in the fossil record, and sinosauropteryx and archaeopteryx both present the very evidence those who shared you claim in the past demanded; they species couldn't interbreed with each other (especially since they lived on opposite sides of the Earth!)

But now that you have such evidence readily before your eyes, you suddenly want to "move the goalposts"?

Perry said- Can't you provide at least one scientific example of where one "kind" turned into a different "kind" of animal. Surely science could accomplish something this simple if it happened millions and millions of times by accident.

Perry, I don't think you understand how evolution operates, since many fossils of archaeopteryx and sinosauropteryx are confirmed, and they represent one "kind" (dinosaur) changing into another "kind" (bird). Evolution is not magic, and such changes don't happen overnight, but via SLOW changes.

BTW, your fellow Xian, Dr Mary Schweitzer, is cited in the paper (#3) below, providing protein evidence for the relationship between dinos and birds:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to the alligator. [3]A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur. [4] A study comparing juvenile and adult archosaur skulls concluded that birds derived from dinosaurs by neoteny. [5]

The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, only a few scientists still debate the dinosaurian origin of birds, suggesting descent from other types of archosaurian reptiles. Among the consensus that supports dinosaurian ancestry, the exact sequence of evolutionary events that gave rise to the early birds within maniraptoran theropods is a hot topic. The origin of bird flight is a separate but related question for which there are also several proposed answers.

Adam

46

If they changed their blood banwould their be a floodgate of lawsuits?

by Londo111 in

i know nothing about legal matters, but there are those here who are quite keen at these things.. if they changed the no blood teaching, would this open the watchtower society up to litigation?.

adamah

Simon said-

So what ban do they drop? You would be hard pressed to nail the WTS down to admitting they now had any ban on blood or blood products. It's been long abandoned ... they just never told their own members.

Of course, that ties in quite nicely with the subtle nuanced shift in semantics we've seen recently, where the WT has been very careful to replace the phrase, "free will" with "freedom of choice", as seen in the Awake! July 2009 article called, "Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?"

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

In the section called, 'Balancing Family Loyalty":

Should family conflict be avoided at all costs? The Bible teaches that children should be obedient to parents and that wives should be in subjection to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22; 6:1) However, it instructs those who love God to “obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Thus, at times, loyalty to God may result in your making a decision that is unpopular with some family members.

Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family. Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13.

The WT has shifted away from claiming that deciding how to worship God is a "free-will" choice, since the term has a meaning within the law that implies freedom from consequences; instead, they're claiming God allows each person the "freedom of choice" to decide what "true teachings" are, but per JW beliefs, the decision to leave JWs (the "true religion") ultimately means paying for the decision with destruction in Armageddeon, but first by being shunned by congregation and family members. So characterizing it as 'freedom of choice' allows for plausible deniability, since it DOESN'T carry the connotation of being free of consequences or ramifications (as 'free will' does).

The use of 'freedom of choice' allows the Society to claim that while members may have decided to leave the "Truth", they didn't have a reaonable expectation to avoid having to 'paying the piper' for the decision, i.e. their fellow congregants and family members also in turn enjoy the freedom to choose NOT to associate with them; the elders simply announce that the person is no longer a member of the JWs, and everyone just knows what they are expected to do.

That's where the Society can say they don't REQUIRE anyone to shun their own family members, although the failure to shun means the non-compliant person is suspectable to charges of 'brazen conduct'; if they persist they risk being DFed, as well. So every member enjoys freedom of association (which includes the right NOT to associate with others).

Further, shunning IS considered as a protected practice under freedom of worship doctrines, where courts have ruld that shunning can be practiced as part of religious worship.

It's a seemingly insurmountable barrier to overcome, esp in this day and age where religions are given a free pass on a multitude of sins. If it weren't all so dastardly and evil, I'd be tempted to call it 'brilliant'.

28

I find I am Shunning my family !

by Phizzy in

jw
friends

although i really hate the wt/jw shunning policy, which especially huts those who have been df'd, i find i am in a kind of way doing it to my jw family.. i do not include them in anything i do, in my own family gatherings, and i cannot be arsed to inform them of things going on in my family, or to even go and see them, unless really necessary.. this all adds up to a kind of "reverse shunning", and i do feel a twinge of guilt about it, but it is simply how things have become.. do you, fellow faders, find a similar thing happening ?.

adamah

Yeah, the irony is that despite all the talk of love, the JW religion attracts and encourages those who are already prone to push others away, a human trait that helps protect us from being hurt, since loving others involves placing our emotions at risk. It's all too easy to find excuses to push others away, in or out of JWs.

46

If they changed their blood banwould their be a floodgate of lawsuits?

by Londo111 in

i know nothing about legal matters, but there are those here who are quite keen at these things.. if they changed the no blood teaching, would this open the watchtower society up to litigation?.

adamah

DOC said- I think a complete reversal of the blood doctrine would cause heavy fallout. Both WITHIN and OUTSIDE of the Organization. From within because it has affect SO many members and their loved ones. It's touted as a special way in which Jehovah has protected His people (from AIDS, etc). All the doctrine of it being "bad medicine" etc would have to be retracted.

Well, the fact is that blood transfusions are NOT without complications, even today, and even aside from the obvious errors (eg cross-matching errors, giving someone the wrong blood type which can prove fatal), people face a low-risk of complications from transfusions.

Granted, the advantages FAR outweigh the risks, esp if you're facing anemia/anoxia from massive blood loss, but many providers have really backed off the knee-jerk decision to transfuse, for many good reasons (cost being only one factor: a unit of blood costs about $1,000, IIRC). In other words, the JWs were not completely incorrect on the health risks, since many needless transfusions that resulted in complications were likely given in the past.

Of course, the safety concerns were NOT why JWs refused: it was simply a matter of following God's orders. So any health benefits were post-hoc rationalization, AKA the frosting on the cake from what they described as obeying Divine orders.

DOC said- From outside because it is the one of the few issues that generates media attention regarding JWs. A complete reversal would make headlines in the news.

That's why we're likely going to see what we are seeing: a gradual evolution of the policy away from verboten to allowing 'fractions', and then it likely will eventually be declared as a 'conscience matter'.

I feel sorry for the last JW to die from refusal just before 'new light' is announced (say, at the AGM in 2030? Anyone want to start a pool for a date?), but of course, their JW family will be comforted being told they died faithful to Jehovah, and the family will be reunited in the resurrection; they'll likely be happy with that.

Adam

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

Cantleave said-

Oh better put this here so you know I am being facetious

Thanks for the clarification, since it's sometimes very hard to discern between counterfeit ignorance vs the genuine article, LOL!