Posts by adamah

11

Embarrassing J.w 'historical' article ... Cringe....

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

what would an article look like if written by cult leaders promoting igorant beliefs, drowning under the weight of real evidence....?

enjoy!

(link below).

adamah

Yup, that's the one. Thanks, Julia.

It's online, and shockingly they even admitted this in the TEXT:

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?” 13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.” 14

The more typical is how they show page after page of admissions buried in the footnotes, like this:

Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created.He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

As if any scientist would say that ANY theory was EVER fully understood (scientist: "That does it, folks! We've got EVERYTHING figured out now, so we're hanging up the test tubes now!"). What a weasel word disclaimer, "not yet fully understood".

Later they seemingly quit trying, figuring it's hopeless anyway (or, they're banking on most readers not reading the footnotes after the first few pages, even if they did). They just use the word 'evolution'.

Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.

It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.

Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.

I don't relish the challenge of having to cherry-pick thru scientific articles, thumbing through page after page in order to hunt for anything that could CONCEIVABLY be taken out of context in order to cobble together an article challenging evolution. Now THAT takes a talented writer!!!

Adam

124

Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty in

thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.

however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.

sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.

adamah

SBF said-

That is exactly what I am saying, in contrast with the view that the reality of any situation can be determined 100%. The key word here is "useful" and the key absence is "truth".

I tend to agree if you're saying that there are no absolute "truths" (eg Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that Newton's laws are limited to our plane of existence, and break down in black holes, etc), and it's only a fool's quest to find them (and that includes "moral laws").

I am making two points. One is that we can never be certain we perceive reality as it really is.

Yup, and that's why we all build a MODEL of reality in our brains: it's NOT the reality itself, only our PERCEPTION of what is "out there".

eg humans are known to see (perceive) colors differently, so their perception of green is different from mine. Via the CONVENTION of language, we all agree that light of 540nm is going to be called 'yellow', regardless of how we perceive it; individual perceptions created in the brain are KNOWN to vary amongst individuals. So who's right? No one can ABSOLUTELY declare what the perception of 'yellow' is or SHOULD be, and that's why we adopt a STANDARDIZED definition (540nm). Just realize, the CONVENTION is not the reality, either, just an attempt and agreement to identify the stimulus in a consistent manner.

The second is that even if we could see reality as it really is then language is not equipped to transmit any stable conception of that reality.

True, too. Language changes, as I posted earlier today on the Adam and Eve thread, using the example of phrase, 'Big Brother'. Meanings aren't locked in, and hence the difficulty of reading a book written 2,500 yrs ago and thinking you're going to understand the message in the original context. It's nuts to think a layperson can, but the vast majority of the population will, without giving it a second thought.

Nevertheless, the lack of absolutes and certainty is NOT some excuse for us to do NOTHING, as if giving up in a nihilist defeatist funk. We're here, and we've gotta do something with our time besides knocking on doors telling others that absolutes exist. :)

Meaning and morality are where we find/make it, being largely controlled by one's cultural influences.

IMO,

Adam

124

Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty in

thesits are fond of reminding us that science cannot prove there is no god, and in this they are correct.

however, science should not be dismissed so lightly by anybody who values a faith that is more than a mere fantasy.. theologians like john shelby spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality.

sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.

adamah

Cofty said-

Theologians like John Shelby Spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality. Sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise. We often witness people of faith on this forum who think it is a virtue to hold on to beliefs that science has exposed as impossible.

The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Homo sapiens evolved form non-human ancestors over million of years.
There was no Adam & Eve, no state of perfection and no fall.
All living things evolved from a common ancestor.
There is no stage of the process of evolution, no example of complexity, that requires an intelligent maker.
There was no global flood.

These are not opinions of equal validity as religious beliefs, these are incontrovertible facts that will still be true in a thousand years. If everybody on earth forgot everything they knew and the process of human lerning had to start again from zero we would eventually arrive at these same facts. They are objetively true and they must trump religious dogma if theists wish to be taken seriously.

Reality is far more exciting, fascinating and satisfying than any supernatural story. It is not necessary to reject the supernatural in order to accommodate reality but it is necessary to allow reality to set the boundaries of your beliefs.

While I agree with your conclusion (reality is far more exciting, romantic, etc, etc), you seem to think science has "incontrovertible facts", which is vastly overstating the reality of how science operates; worse, it misses the point of what actually makes science SUPERIOR to theology.

In science, NO idea are above challenge, NO 'sacred cows'.

If someone produces sufficient evidence tomorrow to show that evolution is completely WRONG by producing a better model of reality that fits the observations, then out Darwin goes on his keester (not that it's going to happen: Darwin's theory been challenged, modified, verified, rinse/repeat, etc and withstood challenge for 150 yrs, where his explanation serves as the unifying theory of biology, even as physicists still seek a unifying theory in their discipline).

IF someone found Adam and Eve's bones tomorrow (say, their graves were found, buried under the petrified Tree of Knowledge) and it was conclusively verified by scientiific testing, etc, it would PROVE their existence (and note that it's still a long way from proving the Biblical account, much less God's existence, etc). In fact, it would be just as irrational NOT to believe in Adam and Eve at that point than it is for religious types to deny that there's OVERWHELMING evidence that points to the impossibility of a global flood. In fact, there's a non-zero probability of that actually happening, but it's so insignificantly small as to approach zero.

In fact, ALL scientific theories MUST be 'falsifiable', where the hypothesis/theory MUST be testable and and able to be challenged in order for it to constitute a valid scientific theory, in the first place.

What science ISN'T is a system that relies on dogma, telling people what they MUST believe by resorting to appeals to authority, etc. Dogmatic beliefs generally aren't rational, and if you think they ARE, then you're simply offering a different flavor of what the JWs, buddakudrhists (sp?), etc offer, except co-opting the name "science" to create a belief system (and the Scientologists are one step ahead in that area, blending pseudo-science with religion).

Adam

30

STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH! Possible shift in position from the WTBTS on the global vs local deluge.

by marmot in

a buddy of mine recently sent me a link to the official wtbts facebook page and i thought what the hey, let's see what they have to say about the question that made me fade in the first place.

much to my surprise, they answered!

you may already be aware that the general position of jehovah's witnesses is briefly stated here:.

adamah

"We are not scientists, of course, and it is quite possible that when one adheres rigorously to scientific precepts, that it is simply not possible for many of them to accept a global flood just 4,000 years ago. Therefore, we have no doubt that scientists are generally quite honest about their understanding of the evidence."

Let's flip that around, and see what a scientist might say to the JWs:

"We are not MEMBERS OF A CULT, of course, and it is quite possible that when one adheres rigorously to THEOLOGICAL precepts, that it is simply not possible for many of them to accept THE IMPOSSIBILITY of a global flood just 4,000 years ago. Therefore, we have no doubt that MEMBERS are generally quite honest about their REFUSAL TO SEE the evidence."

Adamah

170

Proof of Noah's Flood - Presently watching a Documentary about Europe & the Ice Age

by *lost* in

first time i ever heard anyone say there was 'proof' of noah's flood.. very interesting,.

showed a trawler, where the team dredges regularly in the north sea - for animal bones, massive land animal bones, mammoths.. he said, originally, the bones were sent for analysis, and the dr stated, they were proof of noah's flood.. the north sea area was a land mass of dry grazing lands.

and it was very similar to africa.. many bones were found in london, of lions, hippos, etc ... when they were digging out the underground.. .

adamah

redvip said-

Now, we can go around using all-encompassing excuse of " Well God performed miracles to resolve all those issues". But even that makes no sense.

Yeah, but that's EXACTLY what believers often WILL do, since they believe "with God, all things are possible". Pointless to waste energy on basis of scientific impossibility, since a miracle implies a supernatural suspension of the rule of Nature.

"God Dun It!" covers a multitude of impossibilities.

Why would God disturb the planet in this manner and kill millions of animals and plants, destroy entire ecosystems, make animals fly over oceans, etc etc etc, when all he needed to do is send an angel to earth and kill all humans existing at that time, except those 8?

Heck, God's THE "Intelligent Designer". How trivial would it be to take a pre-existing virus and insert a deadly gene that kills all the humans, but design a vaccine to give to Noah and family? It's bio-engineering, SHOULD be trivial for God, and avoids the need for building the ark, grabbing pandas from China, kangaroos from Australia, dinosaurs from wherever they were located (ooops: scratch them), etc, and best part is it leaves no ugly high water marks on Mt Ararat.

The REASON is the Hebrews had a perfectly-good legend of a Flood, and decided to use that myth to accomplish a number of different purposes in Genesis 9:

1) explain where rainbows come from

2) excuse to introduce their own authority over other Jews, claiming having the Divine authority to do so

3) establish a prohibition on the first of many cultural markers (don't eat blood)

Cofty said-

There is zero evidence for a global flood. The bible story is a fairy tale with no basis in reality other than the unremarkable fact that many cultures have flood myths.

I suspect you've not taken a course in cultural anthropology (sociology) or studied much about World mythology (Joseph Campbell), as the basis of many myths ARE in fact grounded in physical realities: that's one of the basic premises of sociology/mythology, as an attempt to explain why things are the way they appear the way they do.

The flood account is a perfect example: the story attempts to explain where rainbows come from. Rainbows ARE in fact "based in reality", and the story is an attempt to explain their origins ("God Dun It!" was an answer in the days before science offered the angle of diffraction of sunlight inside water molecules found in atmospheric water, breaking it up into the prismatic bands of primary colors, etc).

Of course, flooding represented a threat to any society that was transitioning from nomadic to agrarian, since floods caused not just loss of life (human and livestock, from which you could flee), but primarily loss of crops (not so easy to move a crop in a field, and if flooded, the people starved to death). Hence it was commonly found throughout the World, and as you say, it's almost to be expected that you'd find such stories, since a good story passed like wildfire.

Adam

31

Fading hurts so much!!

by ILoveTTATT in

yet another update on my story:.

for various reasons, i still have to go to all meetings.

(i am looking to change my personal circumstances to allow me to live somewhere else so i can fade easier)... i actually don't mind going to the mid-week meeting since i can comment on the bible reading, and slowly but surely i can introduce little seeds of cognitive dissonance... making it seem like i am super interested in what the interlinear says or that people can actually go and check out the manuscripts for themselves online!

adamah

ITTAT,

I wouldn't worry about feeling like a hypocrit: that's part of the religious baggage that you're carrying around, where hypocrisy is a great sin in the Bible. You'll need to reconsider it's worth, since there ARE morally-justifable situations where it's perfectly acceptable to appear hypocritical to others (figuring that out is part of reestablishing healthy personal boundaries).

Fading IS tough, since you're trapped in limbo, neither fish nor fowl. It's a bit like bungy-jumping off a bridge where the person is too paralyzed with fear to jump, but doesn't want to face their peers disappointed faces for NOT jumping, having to take the "walk of shame" back. It's arguably as tough as being shunned (depending on individual circumstances).

Just be careful not to replace one problem (JW cult) with another (alcoholism): both are just different methods of avoiding confronting reality, and life is better served when you're seeing it for what it IS, not what you WANT it to be.

Adam

30

STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH! Possible shift in position from the WTBTS on the global vs local deluge.

by marmot in

a buddy of mine recently sent me a link to the official wtbts facebook page and i thought what the hey, let's see what they have to say about the question that made me fade in the first place.

much to my surprise, they answered!

you may already be aware that the general position of jehovah's witnesses is briefly stated here:.

adamah

Yeah, I don't think they're saying what you THINK they're saying.

The WT is saying that they don't think all the scientists and scholars are LYING, per se (and how nice of the WT to admit that they aren't INTENTIONALLY DECEIVING OTHERS, huh?). Instead, they're saying the scientists and scholars are just a bit confused, and are honesty decieved. They're saying that the SCIENTISTS and SCHOLARS are free to examine any "new evidence" if/when it should become available, NOT the WT:they're not scientists, as they admit, but THEY are in contact with God, the deity who ordered the Flood! Besides, Isaiah and Jesus believed in the Flood, so YOU SHOULD TOO! ('appeals to authority', anyone?)

Utter poppy-cock: there's PLENTY of available evidence on which to conclude a global flood as depicted in Genesis 6-9 is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Adam

170

Proof of Noah's Flood - Presently watching a Documentary about Europe & the Ice Age

by *lost* in

first time i ever heard anyone say there was 'proof' of noah's flood.. very interesting,.

showed a trawler, where the team dredges regularly in the north sea - for animal bones, massive land animal bones, mammoths.. he said, originally, the bones were sent for analysis, and the dr stated, they were proof of noah's flood.. the north sea area was a land mass of dry grazing lands.

and it was very similar to africa.. many bones were found in london, of lions, hippos, etc ... when they were digging out the underground.. .

adamah

lost said-

Science, as far as I am aware, does not 'deal' with emotions.

Au contraire. Explaining emotional reactions and the neurological basis of emotional reactions is the very reason psychology exists. The very existence of medications which manage emotional conditions (mood disorders) like depression should serve as sufficent proof to prove otherwise.

In fact, it MAY also explain why people are not aware of science's understanding of this: some simply don't WANT to know (denial).

Missfit said:

One of the arguments for the flood being real was that Jesus referenced it.

Did he reference it because it was part of the Jewish traditional writings and they would be familar with it and understand his point?

Jesus was a man who lived 2,000 yrs ago, and he gets a pass for believing in a legend that was an intrinsic part of his culture. Modern people know better, and as Cofty says, wallowing in ignorance is now a personal choice.

I've written two articles on the Flood account coming at it from the Bible angle, looking at the claims JWs use to justify the preaching work, and their blood policy. It may be interesting reading for you to consider.

Adam

50

Well I gotta go......

by punkofnice in

jw
friends

...i might drop in every now and then but i hope you all enjoy life, escape the watchtower(r) and live prosperous lives.. i can't say i contribute much here anyway (and i'm not attention seeking).. i'm just going to get on with life away from the constant reminder of the mistakes i made being a jw zombie drone.. i guess i'm just going to fade.......rather quickly.. of course i didn't need to make any posts here to disappear but i thought it'd be polite and very british to bid you all a fond farewell.. see you all sometime.....maybe.....maybe not.....maybe....... bye!.

ps.

don't pm me as i won't be checking the pms.. .

adamah

Enjoy LIFE, PON!

The greatest sign of truly being over the JW experience is when it fades into being only a distant memory, as it if happened to someone you used to know, where you say, "wait: what's a JW, again? Sounds kinda familiar....".

Adam

PS you'll be back. See, you can check out anytime you WANT, but you can never LEAVE (didn't anyone tell you that JWN is ALSO a cult, LOL?).

17

Sense of Mortality, Existential Angst and Leaving the Borg

by Frazzled UBM in

firstly apologies if i am stating the bleeding obvious or covering something that has already been covered or just showing my ignorance as someone who wasnever a jw - i am new here and relatively new in my exposure to the wbts organisation and its dogma.

the thing that has occurred to me is that born-in jws and middle-age jws must avoid the teenage existential angst of really getting a sense of their own mortaility and the middle age crisis of realizing that their best years are behind and they on the long downhill slide, because they expect to live forever.

i always wondered why teenage jws are goody two-shoes while they are believers and often go off the rails, even as 20 or 30 something adults, when they wake up and i figure that, apart from the fact that they are no longer being told what is right and wrong and all of a sudden have to work it out for themselves, this may related to the expectation that you will not physically die.

adamah

So no delayed mortality/existential angst smack in the face on leaving the borg?

No, there likely IS. All of that bubbles to the surface when the authoritarian restraints are taken off, even delayed grief over the loss of relatives they were TOLD (and WANTED to believe) they'd see again after the resurrection, when it dawns on them that it was all a lie, etc. There's TONS of that kind of stuff to deal with, after "their eyes have been opened" (like Adam and Eve). The onset of such awareness is very different, where it's going to hit some all at once like a ton of bricks, and others more slowly and diffused (YMMV).

Adam