Posts by Abaddon

135

My Dad died this evening

by Mulan in

jw
friends

i thought i would let you know that my dad, passed away a little while ago, tonight, january 23. they called me at 6pm to tell me.

he had been failing rapidly for the past month, and had completely lost his hearing and was totally blind.

the dementia was extreme too, and he still knew me on thursday, but didn't wake up to know me in the following days.

Real evangelism powered by the Holy Spirit

by Shining One in

as jws we all were forced to participate in their evangelistic method.

i think that it is based primarily on fear.

here is an article about true, holy spirit powered evangelism.

Abaddon

Rex

Every human being has a choice of eternity, smoking or non.

*sings*

"I see your true colours, shining through..."

How Christlike, making jokes about eternal torment...

If you think that all that is real is within the feeble grasp of your mind and senses then you will be truly surprised when you cast off the flesh...

You go first, we're watching. Have you got a webcam?

You will account for them in eternity to your Lord, like it or not.

Prove it. Oh, you can't. Prove. A. Single. Thing. As I think you have previously admitted (or been unab;e to disprove) to me on this forum, you have no more proof of your beliefs than a Shaman in a loiincloth with a bone through his nose.

What does the Bible teach

That there was a Global Flood at a point in history where dozens of civilizations were so wrapped up in whatever it was they were doing they didn't notice drowning and carried on regardless. They built stuff 'before' the 'Flood' that still stands. As do trees that were hundreds of years old when they were submerged for almost a year. On this basis the Bible is not reliable.

But your empty philosophy tastes of ashes Rex, and they are not the ashes of torment your mean spirit would condemn all who do not worship your opinion to. They are the ashes of a paradigm that is devoid of value, devoid of support, full of hate and contempt for your fellow man, full of lies and distortions to back your evil little message.

If there is a god in the primitive violent vein you restrict him to in your ignorance, you will reap the whirlwind for your lack of love and your arrogance. Vanity is your chief motivation, just as is oft the case with your ilk.

It's not about getting people to worship god, it's about getting people to worship your opinion. I suggest you take up Yoga, that way you will, with some effort, be able to give yourself an equivalent act of worship you crave from others, even with the number of vertebrae you evolved with, and stop bothering nice people.

You still crave the simplistic 'answer god', the maker of lightening, the magic skyman who made the world. You still see value in primitive gods that once provided answers for what was then inexplicable.

You ignore that such human, petty, limited, childish conceptions of god now actually create more questions than the 'answers' they once provided to people. Much of the inexplicable is now explained, although primitive hateful minds cling to ignorance and superstition.

One such question your concept of god raises is - how can anyone claiming to give guidance from god (that's you) be so morally repugnant?

However IF there is anything deserving of the term god, then you are as much a part of him as I am, as Osama bin-Ladin is, as Gandhi was. So I pity you. You come here, are Universally derided, make yourself appear foolish vain and hateful beyond all compare, and cause a stumbling with your attitude and cold heart.

Your 'real' life must be non-existent or empty for you to gain any satisfaction from the response you get here.

Poor sad man; let's have a 'pity Rex week'.

God knows the poor sod needs it...

As for 'disconnection' from god, I think this is like saying one can disconnect from the Universe. Anyone implying that we can REALLY be disconnected is just repeating the error of eons, even if, unlike Rex, they are people I'd like to share a meal with and would gladly call friend.

Why? Because they preach exclusivity (if you don't this doesn't apply to you)

I think we might not acknowledge the interconnected nature of all life, but it is still there, we are all still part of it, no matter if one calls it 'god', or an 'emergent characteristic', or 'Atman', or if one denies it.

I believe this acceptance of each other and INCLUSIVITY are vital for the peaceful future of humankind. You can make it out to be divine, or just the way things are, I don't mind, nor does 'god', LOL, you can call him Allah or Odin or the Glastonbury Fairy or synchronistic mechanistic determination, 'god' really could not care less.

54

Anyone here have access to deer meat or sausage?

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

.

i haven't had access to deer meat for awhile and i'm hoping to find another source.

i'm hoping one of you might like to go deer hunting, or might know someone who does.. thanks!

Abaddon

I'm amazed it's hard to get hold of; hell, in a decent supermarket here (Netherlands) we can get hare, deer, wild boar, guinea fowl, quail...

Deer is yum, had some last week.

I thought it was very sad when they stopped drawing Bamibi's mother...

23

I want to say...

by robhic in

i have been reading this forum for a couple of years now and i know this point has been made before but i truly think it needs to be repeated.

i am not, nor ever was, a jw and only arrived here to acquaint myself with "jw-ism" because a friend had joined up.

i needed to study up on stuff so i'd be prepared to (try to) understand where she was coming from with all her new oddball dogmas.

Abaddon

robhic

thanks

How? I was born in.

However, I didn't get out as a teen as many do.

Why?

I LOVED nature programs as a kid, could spend days looking under rocks in parks or snorkeling in the sea, read 'adult' mass market science books from the age of 7 or so...

I knew all about strange South American birds with a thumb on their wings that can grip, occasional whales with rudimentary hind legs, species of snakes with tiny rear legs. I knew all about the formation of U-shaped valleys and the Ice Age.

I was aware there was a big difference between what I was taught by the library, by TV, by school, and at home.

How many eight year olds worry about the impossibility of a creative day being only seven thousand years long (as was dubbie doctrine at the time) because they know this is just silly and totally unsupported by the evidence?

At about 14 I was at a crossroads, but two things combined. One was the revision of doctrine on the length of creative days, which could suddenly be eons long. This in itself would not have been enough to keep me in another decade or so, but I received very little encouragement academically, and didn't have the internal drive to push myself.

Thus my academic knowledge kind of stalled, and I stopped learning of new areas where a Creationistic view is sheer nonsense as my level of knowledge about biology stopped expanding.

And I stopped thinking about the problems I knew existed. Not on a conscious level, but unconsciously. I recall a school friends asking me how all the light from stars millions of light years away got to Earth if it was only so old. I couldn't answer it. I forgot about it. It's how I was trained.

It's called cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold two mutually incompatible ideas in your head at the same time. Thus 'strict creation of kinds' was able to sit alongside 'masses of evidence for evolution'. It's part of the cult trick. Add in the disapproval of higher education, the milieu control (another cult hallmark) whereby you're meant to trust only the information in the dubbie publications, and the fear of rejection by the only family and friends you have really know, and you can keep very clever people chained to silliness.

Hell, I nearly got thrown out of the family home at 17 for playing Dungeons and Dragons... doubting creation would have been far worse! And, yes, I could have made it on my own at that point, but growing up in an environment where you are conditioned to be accepting and unquestioning, dependent upon others, I didn't have 'the guts' to try. Rather than saying to yourself 'I'm living a lie' each day, you lie to yourself that you're right (even when you know you can't be).

The lack of critical thinking ability cultivated by dubbies and other cults also helped cloud my thinking.

Only by moving hundreds of miles away from my family and having a horrible marriage, did the 'gravity' keeping me in get overcome by the 'pressure' forcing me out.

That took until 27 years old. I left because I couldn;t cope, not because I had all the errors figured out.

I went to college straight away, and found I had academic ability - I was surprised at how easy it was, but then I had motivation for the first time, freedom for the first time. And I learned and read entire shelves from the library 'this week it's sexual biology' LOL... 'next week Hinduism'...

I was determined to find out what was right, what god wanted, for myself.

I found out that evolution make so much sense its impossible NOT to believe it. I realized not one religion can make a claim to being right and prove it, and this is a logically absurd situation unless god wants nothing from us, or is a bastard, or doesn't exist. This freed me from worrying about religion, as if god wants nothing from us, is a bastard, or doesn't exist, then there are far more interesting things to think about.

This process took a year or so, probably a bit less.

I then thought dubbies were 'just another religion'... this delusion was destroyed when I learned what a cult was after having been out for three years, and realized I was Ghillie the cult boy. I learned to think critically, to read something deeply, to study... ha!, dubbies have NO IDEA what 'study' is.

But, yeah, I've wondered why it took so long. A normal teenager? A normal twenty-something? Developing relationships with the other sex naturally? As it was I hit University at 27 like a horny 17 year-old and went through my real adolescence in my late twenties and early thirties. I would not change who I am or how I got here (same things really) one dot as I like who I am, but in the words of the song '... it makes me wonder'.

Part of it is how a cult works. Part of it was me being 'lucky' enough to come from a comparatively sane, intelligent, kind, liberal family, and the two Congregations I grew up in being similarly 'nice' environments. If I'd seen or been through some of the shut one hears described here, I'd of probably had the impetus to get out earlier. Part of it was not having the guts as a teenager to essentially turn around and say '€uck you and your silly religion, I'm going to University to study Physics and you can kiss my hairy ass.'

As to how they get 'smart' people in when they are adult... being 'smart' is no protection from the superficial comfort a religion can give you. Skyman make it all better, ah....

... even with 'average' people, either their background makes them susceptible or some crisis or inner turmoil seems to be answered by what the dubbies sell. I think very few people with the level of knowledge about evolution, or of the Bible that some forum members demonstrate get sucked in when they have that knowledge. I think they develop that knowledge once out or on the way out.

58

Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

by Spectrum in

this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

Abaddon

Hi Spectrum, sorry for delay in answer...

As Funky's pointed out, usually there is the horse (evidence) before the cart (theory). Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

For example, there is plenty of evidence for gravity, but we had to wait for Newton to turn tht evidence into a theory that fitted the evidence.

And to be fair I also have to echo the warnings about expectations. You'd no more think of being able to write a paper on Macbeth until you'd read the book, reviewed the contemporay literature, looked at the historical context and examined any topics within modern literary criticism that addressed the topic of your paper.

Likewise, no matter what your level of intelligence, if you were not able to read a paper on Macbeth and have an informed opinion of its validity without some understanding of the contemporay literature, historical context and topics within modern literary criticism that addressed the same topic as the paper.

Just as your ability to play tennis will vary according to how much time and effort you put into playing tennis, so to do effort and time pay didividend in an academic subject. And just as someone who can't play tennis will be boring for someone who can play tennis to play with, even if they are well intentioned, because they can't help but make silly mistakes, so to you will find (have found) that, be it fair or not, there is a certain amount of 'eyerolling' on the part of those that have studied the subject when someone tries to 'play tennis', and doesn;t even know which lines count in a double game.

The rub is, if someone can physically demonstrate they know something, people will be far less likely to over estimate themselves when 'going against them' than in a situation where there is a difference in knowledge about a subject.

And please note, this is about knowledge. Not intelligence. You can GET intelligence - you can get knowledge. The choice is yours, but you do have to live with the concequences.

Thus, without being mean, when you say;

The reason I still have a problem with an unaided process and mechanisms is because the numbers don't stack up.

... I have to ask, what do you know about statistics and probability?

Even a scientist as well known in some areas as Fred Hoyle has made a complete idiot of himself by making unsupported assumptions regarding the probability of events due to his lack of knowledge in the area he made assumptions.

But you are on the right sort of page.

A creature will be the way it is because all those that weren't as near to the way it is 'got eaten' (silly way of saying reproduced in lesser quantities). Its ancestors were the least eaten of their generation. In a million years, if it has descendants at all, they will be the least eaten of its descendant's lineages. Maybe there will be only one surviving lineage, maybe there were two or more equally sucessful ways of not being eaten, and now where we saw one type of creature we see several.

There is a certain degree of inevitability to a creature's form and behaviour, given its environment.

It isn't always inevitable. If we go way back, we find that at a certain point the tetrapods (four limbed creatures) had more than five digits (we are pentadactyl). Now almost all terapods are pentydactyl. That could be 'luck of the draw' - if you did it again, maybe tetrapods would have six digits. Maybe five works better.

Again, it is function that dictates form. The same rules that make the 'inevitable' come about do allow for non-fitness related variability to survive.

I tell you, it is the prettiest theory I have encountered. You can see it everywhere. It is consistent, internally logical, supported by multiple evidences, and explains how things are.

Maybe god is so clever he just made things so they'd work out that way? Maybe god 'breathed' on some Homos erectus? The 'silly' Creation Crew miss the real tricky bits so desperate are they to agree with the goatherd.

If intelligence is a useful survival trait, why do only we have it as we do? Why have no other creatures evolved it if it is so bloody useful? (of course, there are some really great ideas about how it arose, and the fact I have NEVER seen a Creationist attack them speaks to their level of knowledge about the field they dabble in).

One question. Wings, poisonous fangs require environmental pressures, I imagine creation of nucleotides don't?

In a given environment some would have an 'advantage' over others.

Qcmbr

If a shaman said 'ah, but your rules, Qcmbr, don't aply to the astral plane I know of', you might not be able to prove him wrong, but you'll be pretty sure his argument boils down to 'because I say so'.

Now, you can say 'oh, but that doesn't apply to spirit beings'. We might not be able to prove you wrong. But we are pretty sure your argument boils down to 'because I say so'.

Everyone is entitled to an opinon, but if someone knows little about a subject their opinion is more likely to be invalid thn someon who knows a lot about the subject.

Repeated dna code is actually a very, very strong argument for intelligent design if you wish to interpret the facts as such.

Yes, that's exactly the point. ID is presuppositionalistic.

As of repeated sequences of DNA, it is the tracking of repeated sequences that do not code for any protein ('junk' DNA) in various organisms DNA that support evolution so well, as they fit the supposed relationships evolutionary theory has predicted.

Humans search for meanings and patterns that reflect what they already decided happened.

You might do. Others don't. Most advances in science and technology have be made by those who don't. Those who do historically end up changing their opinions. Say hi! to the Flat Earthers... oh, there's only a few left... say hi! to those who say the Earth is the centre of the Universe about which the sun revolves... oooo.... where could they be...?

reaper

Ken Ham is really worth reading up on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

AiG is a money making scheme; he is paid TWICE the average of a non-profit CEO for his post with AiG. His 'science' is deceitful garbage. And hoo quotes from the site despite having been shown this? *sigh*

However, if you want to believe he will give you loads of illusory reasons to make you feel better.

Given that you basically have been given room 26 on floor three of three hotels. You give this a mystic significance. You exclude the staff noting in their records you'd had 326 before and giving it to you again. You ignore that the chance of this is higher than you'd think, as due to the way hotels number rooms, and average hotel sizes, the range of numbers is far more limited than one might think, thus increasing the chance of this happening. You ignore all the people who have had similar experiences of quirky coincidence and who never thought it might mean something.

If god can sort out your hotel reservations, can he please save some time for the dying babies please? Sorry, but that idea of god is so childish. You reduce what you beolive to be the sovreign Lord and Creator of the Universe to a reservations clerk. LOL

hooberus

For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).

Of course, here hooberus ignores no one has seriously talked about abiogenesis in water and open sunlight for decades. The Creationist's best technique - choose your battles carefully - make sure they are ones you can appear to win - and rely upon your audiences' level of knowledge to be at a low enough level for them not to be aware the bit of theory you are sniping out hasn't been credible for decades.

As tetra points out, you ignore that statistics is no friend to those wishing to prove an Intelligent Designer, as that has to be the highest unliklihood of it all, unless you are a presuppositonalist.

And if you are a presuppositionalist, your opinions count for nothing, as it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows, you'll close your eyes to it and preach your presuppostions.

Add your mean spirited assault against the scientific community, ad homing millions of people whose work and study have improved the average quality of life in the past hundred years beyond all recognition, and one doesn't know what to bother saying to you, as none of it will do any good, and you'll insult and impune those that you disagree with as if you can't beat someone in a fair discussion, you'll stoop to character assasination.

diamond

If you believe in a creator there is no reason why he or she cannot have used evolution as the process of creation. Again its not a purely scientific view but its mine.

And one many Christians and theists agree with. We have to remember that the Creationist's agenda is against all those that disagree with them; and most modern Christians DO disgree with them, and have the 'with us or against us' stratagy applied to them by their supposed co-religionists who insist their opinion is right.

The biggest blasphemy is they make out it is about god. It isn't, unless their 'god' is their opinion. ANd what would THAT make them? Idollators?

Abaddon of the , "honest, this keyboard is buggered" class

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

Abaddon

Given that fundamentalist means;

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

... we can all be right on this one, if you regard scientific methodology as a 'set of basic principles', which is pretty reasonable.

However, the common term is where similarity ends, as the paradigms used to come to a conclusion are totally different for definition 1 fundy and definiton 2 scientific method fundy.

As this is so, it's not particulary useful to apply the term to Dawkins, as its use distorts the appreciable and important difference in paradigms.

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

Abaddon

Hi Ross,

(we got to the "no gonnie do" bit in Chewing the fat, v fun)

While the bible is comprehensible to goat-herders, it also resonates with quite a number of people in th 21st century. It is at this very human level that it works, giving many a framework with which to face the world and get through the day. It's clearly not for all, though.

We have to draw a big line between supposed historical reportage, inspirational writing (not as in godidit neccesarily, but as in 'what an inspired idea' as in bloody clever irreductable and right), and subtext.

The supposed historical reportage is frequently NOT accurate. I know you don't despute this. Such passages don't resonate to anyone with half a clue.

Things like 'do not muzzle an oxen threshing grain' or 'you strain the gnat and swallow the camel' or anyone of many 'good sayings' do still resonate to many nowadays.

The subtext is open to individual interpretation, as is whether there is one unified subtext. For example, it you think the subtext is 'be nice', and you think this is a good idea, it will resonate to you.

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

Abaddon

Peppermint

Dawkins points out (caustically) that there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source.

Compare saying;

1a/ 'the sense of taste is worthless'

...and

1/b 'there is no evidence that taste come from any external source'

... to saying;

2a/ 'religious experiences are worthless'

... and

2b/ 'there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source'

1a is opinion, and its worth if bought into question by 1b which is demonstrably false.

2a is also opinion, buts is arguably of worth as 2b supports it

You might not LIKE Dawkins saying religious expience is worthless, but he has clear grounds to do so.

YOU might not be hypocritical for feeling this way.

However, many theists ARE hypocritical to say this as they feel all religous experiences that disagree with their own are worthless.

They criticise Dawkins for feeling exactly as they do about other religions, but wail when their own beliefs are similarly criticised.

Most theists do not believe in 99.9999% of all gods ever believed in.

This means atheists are only 0.0001% different from theists - they simply believe in one god less than most theists.

Yet many theists - hypoctitically - wail if anyone has the cheek not to believe in THEIR god, when they disbelieve in all other gods themselves.

They will refuse to accept other people, maybe in a loin cloth with a bone through their nose, or maybe in the church next door, have valid religious experiences or ideas about god, on the basis of their own religious experiences and ideas about god when, in terms of proof, both sets of ideas about god and both sets of religious experience are as valid as each other.

Can you maybe see why Dawkins gets caustic? When most religious people condemn him for being slightly more thorough than them when it comes to disbelieveing religious experiences, and don't realise the massive double standard they thereby display!

Some fun reading;

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_arg_experience.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=experiences

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

hooberus, Those sites misrepresent decent science. You know this. Stop spreading misinformation.

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

Abaddon

AnnOMaly

Cool handle;

What bugs me about Dawkins (I agree he is a fundamentalist) is his attitude that only stupid, ignorant people believe in a God.

No, he believes only stupid, ignorant people believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, or any other creation myth that isn't backed by the vast array of evidence supporting modern evolutionary theory. And ya know what? He's right.

However, as he belkieves such beliefs are actually god-dishonouring (I have a copy of 'The Ancestor's Tale' at home I could quote from but I am at work so exciuse the paraphrase), to say he believes any belief in god is stupid or ignorant is not supported by the facts.

By all means prove me wrong with direct quotation.

As for him being a fundamenatilst, or evolution being a fundamentalist school of thought;

fundamentalist 1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

... under definiton 2 one could call him a fundamentalist. But since when has being someone who adheres strictly to the principles of scientific methodology been a bad thing? If you don't like people like that, stop using computers, or anything else designed by those 'naughty' scientists who adhere strictly to the principles of scientific methodology

Literal interpretation of a book which, as far as Genesis goes is NOT literal (trees older than Noah's Flood still standing, Great Pyramid in Giza built well before the Flood, the list is endless but check those two out) is silly.

Keeping to a methodology designed to minimise error (NOT eliminate it, we're only human) is NOT silly.

28

Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint in

i watched the second part of richard dawkins program yesterday evening -the root of all evil?- i really have enjoyed this program and have found dawkins to come across as genuine and humane.

the problem i have with the program is that i do not want to believe his point of view, but i am feeling more and more drawn towards it.

the point i notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

Abaddon

Peppermint

Good questions

The problem I have with the program is that I do not want to believe his point of view,

Here you show honesty; many would never admit this.

but I am feeling more and more drawn towards it. The point I notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

My question : Is Dawkins just another fundamentalist, one in a white overall opposed to a white collar (or blue/brown polyester suite in JW world). I know to the Christian community he is perceived as the anti-Christ, so maybe this is what drives him.

Errr... which part of the Christian community? The fundamental Christians who are determined that the Earth was created in six literal days? Oh, yes, they hate him.

The less radical CHristians who believe that there was no evolution between species? Those who have created a 'Trojan Horse' called ID? Yes, some of them don't like him either.

However, you're buying into their lie. They say that THEIR interpretation of Genesis is THE ONLY right one. Just like those Muslims who blow people up say that their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the only right one.

Just as there are many Muslims who do not believe in blowing people up, there are many Christians who believe in evolution. The Catholics gave that fight up as lost years ago. They're quite happy to accept most of modern evolutionary theory. Many sincere Christians of a liberal modern outlook feel the same. To them, Dawkins is no enemy.

This is not a fight between evolution and god. This is a fight between Biblical literalism and accepting reasonable evidence.

This is why Dawkins is not a fundamentalist. He accepts the evidence supporting various theories, indeed, drawing from evidence he makes theories. Many Christians do likewise - they see no reason why they should accept the Genesis account as literal. They see passages describing sulphur-breast-plated locusts - things they know are impossible - and know these are allegories or metaphors. They decide if all the evidence points to the Genesis creation account as being impossible, then it must also be an allegory or a metaphor.

A fundamentailist will say trees are pink and purple if their interpretation of their Holy Book makes them think that it says trees are pink and purple; even if you insert a green and brown tree up their nostril, they will deny the evidence of their own eyes. Is that wisdom?

Those who don't take a literalistic view of the Bible - does it reduce their faith in God one iota? No. In fact, you'll notice if you read Dawkins (his conclusion of 'The Ancestor's Tale' for example) that Dawkins feels the limitations put on the power of god by fundamentalists is almost sacreligious.

Fundamentalists are effectively saying "if a bronze age goatherd imagined the only way god could create the Universe was like some glorified potter, then that is the only way god can create the Universe".

Maybe some people think god can be larger and more wonderful than that?

After all, we are told to worship god in spirit and truth. We are told to use our minds; that's what they are there for, after all. To, instead of worshiping god to worship a book, black lines on squashed dead trees, would seem to be committing exactly the same error as the Pharasees, reducing belief in god to some ritualistic formula

The program did not contain a lot of meat so I want to read more, it really is a subject I have chosen not to explore until now.

Is Dawkins the only place to go with this, or are there other Evolutionists out there who give an easier to swallow outline of evolution, for an ex-jw who’s faith in God has diminished but doesn’t want to be extinguished just yet.

Go to Amazon.com and type in 'evolution'. You'll find a variety of books there. Dawkins is good. Gould is good. Check the reviews by people and go for one that sounds like you'll enjoy it.

Do not be drawn into the lies of fundamentalists. Although they might be sincere, they aren't trying to get you closer to god, but merely to their pre-determined idea of god, their opinion of god. In the end you end up worshipping their opinions, rather than god.

You say at the start;

I do not want to believe his point of view

... and you don't have to.

You can believe that god started it all in such a clever way (just as a skilled cook can) all the ingredients came together magically to form the complete dish, exactly as god wanted, using evolution.

You can believe god gave early hominds the gift of intelligence, them having evolved that far naturally.

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove those stances; unlike the fundamentalists, whose views are easily demonstrable as nonsesne using sound evidence.

And maybe god is inside out.

Maybe rather than US being made by god, WE (as in humans) make god. Just as a colony of ants will do things no individual ant can do, or things that cannot be predicted by looking at an ant (it's called an emergent characteristic), maybe 'god' is an emergent characteristic of human society? A feature of society that cannot be predicted by looking at individual humans, but no less 'real' for all it's lack of substance.

You really now have to find god as he may be to you, not as people have tried to sell him to you. It might means kissing the benevolent personality in the sky who will make it all better goobye. But it doesn't mean losing compassion, love, awe, or anything else like that.

Good luck, and don't be afraid to answer questions. We don't bite... well, only if people ignore the difference between having their own opinion and having their 'own' facts. Everyone is entitled to the former; there is only one set of the latter.