| What May Jehovah's Witnesses And Atheists Have In Common? |
| Written by Nils Jansma |
| Wednesday, 05 August 2009 13:46 |
For those who are interested in whether Dawkins is judgmental or not, follow this link. Also go through Amazon's preview of Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.
Hits: 1123 Trackback(0)
Comments (27)
  written by Jimbo , August 10, 2009 "Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Atheists are judgmental of others and believe that they have an exclusive franchise on truth." well, I would start with this statement. The only one who comes off as judgmetal is you, not Atheists. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by AB , August 11, 2009 I enjoyed your article very much - but atheists of the world will feel uncomfortable with it I think. I truly feel that atheism is doomed in the long run - the deeper we go, the closer we look at the "real" evidence, the more evidence for design we see. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
 written by Pilgrim , August 11, 2009 This is to Jimbo. Thanks for your response. I was afraid I might sound judgmental and thought how ironic, here I am accusing someone of being judgmental in a judgmental way. I didn't mean to sound that way and may write up a follow up showing some quotes of atheists ridiculing faith as if it were some sort of mental disorder. I don't think you question that Jehovah's Witnesses are judgmental but you do question that atheists are. It sounds like you might be an atheist. So I ask you, how do you feel about fundamental Christians who believe the universe and earth were created in seven 24 hour days. How do you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses who, though changing, have believed that the it took only 48,000 years to prepare the earth and all life on the earth for man? How do you feel about the Bible's account of creation? Have you ever written or said judgmental things about these things? Again, if I sounded judgmental, it wasn't my intention. I am just leading into an enlarged subject dealing with the first and second Chapters of Genesis and showing how current they are. I also want to examing the undenied fact that atheists have made it a point to paint the Intelligent Design issue with a 24 hour creationists brush. I know many of them are just using this as a tactic because they want to avoid discussing the issues. However, I also know that many others have never investigated the Intelligent Design arguments and probably truly believe they are 24-hour creationists. The truth is, many of the ID advocates are agnostic and one noteworthy former supporter was an atheist. I think he has since drifted toward a form of the anthropic principle due to probabilistic causes. I am not sure about this. I always thought it would be hard for a committed atheist to support an intelligent design concept. Anyway, thanks again for giving your opinion. I will try to be careful in the future to not sound judgmental without compromising the truth. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Darrek , August 11, 2009 I read your article and was pushed away pretty fast of how much it contradicted itself. Like the first commenter said, by saying how Jw's are just like Atheists is doing two things. It's judging them and also stereotyping Atheist into one entire group which you just can not do. Even though witnesses have to say they believe in everything the Watchtower says they have their own thoughts on the matter, they just keep it to themselves so really you can not even stereotype JW's even though it would be very easy cause they almost all believe the same things. You talk about ID, you mention compromising "Truth" and things like that as if you were telling the truth and scientists were not. But its all relative. Take for example you say that science proves more and more that the bible is accurate, some agree and some disagree. There is no right or wrong there is only perspective. like that one scripture in Isiah that says the circle of the earth is hanging upon nothing. The bible believer says "You see they were way ahead of their time in science" The science says "He said Circle, the earth is not a circle its a sphere, and at the time they thought the earth was on top on animals balancing on whatever(I forget) so of course they say its hanging upon nothing" Both statement are not wrong or right because we have no idea of what they writer actually meant. Now we can come to some pretty good conclusions buts that's where people take up opinions. Your OPINION is that Atheist are a certain way and wrong, there is no "truth" that they are covering up or hiding. Just as their opinion is that the bible is way way wrong and we came here by other means. In my studies I have learned 2 very important things about humans. One is that aside from a very few people we all want to have a purpose and a leader that gives us direction and purpose. The second is that Humans are very very very easy to control both in thoughts and actions. All you have to do is understand how they think and you can control the masses. With that said i noticed that you used a lot of the same arguments that Creationists have used for decades. You use some of the same reasoning which in the end is no different then how the Watchtower teaches. I am not saying you are trying to control people or anything like that but the reasoning that you used screams out loud that what you are saying comes from century's of religion's teachings and reasoning's. When you here a scientist or Atheist say that they think all people who believe in the bible are crazy this is what they mean. They do not mean that it is stupid to believe in God just they way you go about it. I am myself a Atheist, well I consider myself 90% Atheist because of what I have found evidence wise, but that does not mean one day I will change my mind. This being said I watched a debate with a Creationist vs a Atheist/Evolutionist. That debate was the very first time I actually seen a creationists actually use cold hard facts. he did not use all of the same reasoning's that have been passed down forever. He did not use Ad hominem atacks, no strawman arguments. I still do not agree with him, but I was very impressed with how he presented his side. If you wrote that article that it came across that way, I seriously doubt that you would have bad responses, even from a atheists like myslef. I hope this makes sense, i am not to good with words. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
written by Nils Jansma , August 12, 2009 Darrek: Thanks for the constructive criticism, Darrek. I agree with you about the unethical stereotyping of people. I did mention initially that it was my experience with three ex-Jehovah's Witnesses that was the basis for many of my assertions. Except for you, ( I assume you are a former Witness and more of an agnostic than a 100% atheist) many atheists sound as if they are seeking converts by challenging the Bible as an inspired book. My blogs reflect some of my opinions based upon what I have learned from them. It is my opinion that, many atheists are not up to date with their arguments and might reconsider when exposed to many of the current findings in the fields of geology and biology. This is especially true of the field of Evo-devo (evolution of development). I apologize if my essay sounded like I was speaking in absolutes because, except for deductive truths, I agree with the Apostle Paul when he said that we see things as if through a blurry metal mirror ( 1 Corinthians 13:12). So please don't take offense at my wording because no offense or sarcasm is intended. Having said this, I think even you will agree that the same cannot be said for Jehovah's Witnesses and many atheists. Both parties poke fun at each other apparently to amuse their intended audiences. Their ad hominem remarks can't be intended to educate, in my opinion. You brought out many other points that I am going to skip to shorten this response. I wanted to suggest that your last paragraph, though no doubt unintended, seemed to be a demonstration of stereotypical fault finding when you said, "In my studies I have learned 2 very important things about humans." I don't think you meant this as a statement of truth but just your opinion. Tradition says, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I think this maxim contradicts your conclusions. I only mention this because I wanted to show how easy it is to sound judgmental to some people if they are looking to find fault. Another of your comments I found interesting is what you said about the Bible and the earth. If you are interested, I have included a link to an illustration showing the type of earth that the ancients had in mind. http://www.thebeginning.us/Cha...hape-2.htm I base the Scriptures associated with this picture on all the relevant historical artifacts that have been recovered to date. If you are interested in seeing one of these artifacts that is to be found at the British Museum, click the following link. http://www.thebeginning.us/Cha...-World.htm This world view is known as a phenomenal depiction of reality. This means simply that they depicted reality by what they could see. In Hebrew, there is no word for planet earth. Therefore, the words "world" and "earth" were included in the definition of the Hebrew word that literally meant "land" and referred to what you could see or know about. It makes sense that God spoke to people in terms they could understand. However, it is my opinion that the words used by God can also be interpreted today to agree with what we have found out now through scientific investigations. This apparent fact makes one appreciate the profundity of the Bible in that it communicates effectively with all audiences throughout all ages. This concept of updating the meaning of ancient languages to match current findings is discussed in greater detail by a short article I wrote entitled, "Made of Green Cheese - An Analogy of The Moon" http://www.nils4.info/MGC/gc.htm Again, thank you for your response. If I have said anything of offend you, it was not my intention. If you care to respond to this "response," I would welcome the opportunity to clarify anything I have said. Nils Jansma report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by AllTimeJeff , August 13, 2009 Hi Nils.... A fellow freeminder here, with some opinions. I offer them in a very conciliatory manner, and I hope they are accepted in the same way. More then anything, I just want to talk about the differences between atheists and other "groups". I quote "groups" because in this context, religions, whether JW, your personal religion, or other religions and churches gather and identify themselves for things in common. Atheists are often "anti group", as in, that group think mentality that often permeates many religions. An atheist poster on another board I participate in put it this way, which I agree with: "Perhaps more to the point, my personal sense of self, my identity, is not tied to my belonging to a group of people, namely 'atheists'. In any case, atheists do not form a group in the tribal sense that religious sects do. There is no group to join, merely a bunch of people who reject membership in groups. We get grouped together by others, not by ourselves." I think that is a critical difference. Atheists do not join a club, or a cabal. While certainly there are a fair amount of scientists who are atheist, that is where the similarities end. It seems you are trying to tie in two arguments here, that, although related, do not in of themselves answer questions. To try and show how atheists are like JW's does not really lend credence to what I perceived to be the real point of your blog, which seemed to be a defense into creationism? I would agree that some atheists are pretty vicious in their observations about religion and theists, and I think that regretable. On the other hand, I think history bears out that this is a reaction caused by religions tendency through the centuries to censure scientific queiries and findings. (Galileo?) Even to this day, God is often in the gaps. By that I mean, at the end of the day, the best a believer can do is perceive god in the clear absence of his/her being. I don't mind this personally, to each their own. But to teach and enforce something like creationism that isn't proveable, as some try to do today, is a mistake. Even if that were the case, it will always go back to whose ancient belief system is superior, to which, their really isn't a metric to determine such. It has to be noted that while old, Christianity is hardly the oldest group think religion out there, and certainly, the gaps can be explained in the context of other world religions and their belief systems just as easily. I offer the above just as some thoughts on your blog. It seems that the dual arguments of what JW's and atheists have in common along with creationism arguments are at odds with each other and not mutually inclusive. One subject or the other might be a better tack. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Darrek , August 13, 2009 I don't think you were trying to offend anyone don't worry. I use to get crap all the time cause I came off that way to. I do think that maybe you might be mixing up judgmental with atheists being blunt and somewhat frustrated. I have in my mind Richard Dawkins. To me he does not come off judgmental, it would not be in his best interests to be that way beings he writes his books not to convince atheists but to "wake up" believers. However he is very blunt, and sometimes when I watch him on TV I can see him get that glazed over look on his face that could be taken as he is being judgmental. I think that what he is thinking is how crazy the reasoning's he is hearing at that moment. Being out of a religion I see and feel exactly how frustrating it can be to sit there and listen to people who reason like this. Like when I tried to reason to my wife that the Watchtower is a cult. Or when i brought up how terribly the Watchtower treated Black people, which she is half black and I would have thought this would offend her but it did not. Any normal non indoctrinated person would be offended by that, I was myself. But their reasoning is so out there that it can piss people on the other side off. I am pretty sure this is what you are picking up on. That debate i was talking about in my last post is somewhere on the internet, try to google "Richard Dawkins Debate" and see what you come up with.Like I said before it was a decent debate between both sides, I think some of his reasoning's are faulty, but overall did a good job of defending his side. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , August 13, 2009 Darrek Thanks for the words of encouragement. I posted a blog a week ago which is just now being put on-line. It has a similar Atheist vs JW title that may be offensive. As I have explained to others, because Randy's blog is directed at JW's, I have to include them within the scope of my material. So my associations may appear tenuous, but they have some relevance if I want to communicate with JW's who are now atheists. I am going to review the title of my latest blog and change it if it sounds offensive. You may want to look it over and give me some feedback. I also have a note of reconciliation posted to qualify anything I write. You might look it over and offer any suggestions you think might improve it. http://www.nils4.info/R.htm By the way, I think the debate you might be referring to was between Dawkins and Alister E. McGrath. He wrote a rebuttal to Dawkins book entitled, "The Dawkins Delusion" as a take-off on Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion." It is a very good book and, in my opinion, shows Dawkins to be very judgmental and not just blunt when directing invectives at religious concepts. As an example, on page 75, starting Chapter 4, Is Religion Evil? McGrath quotes: "RELIGION IS EVIL! WHEN IT IS BANISHED FROM THE FACE of the earth, we can live in peace! It is a familiar theme. The God that Dawkins does not believe in is 'a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.'" Darrek, wouldn't you say that sounds just a little judgmental? If you are interested in reviewing a video of the debate, follow the link below. By the way, after the video starts, the sound is low and then there is sharp 1 second piercing tone for some reason. After that it seems to be OK. The run time is 1 hour and 10 minutes. http://www.nils4.info/DawkinsDebate/DG.htm report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Nils Jansma , August 13, 2009 AllTimeJeff Thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate your demeanor and hope that my reply and article reflects a kindred spirit. I will not to respond to every point because I agree more or less. There are a few clarifications I would like to make, however. First, you are right on when you say you believe that my blog was stretched to include two "groups." I did that because Randy's blog is directed primarily toward Jehovah's Witness and my interest is to include atheists also. In order to include Jehovah etc., among my key words and description I have to include them within the scope of my discussion. While atheists may be a "group" of free thinkers, I have found that they often have the same discussion points in common when criticizing people of faith. That is the "group" to whom I am addressing my blog information. If you are not in that group, which seems to be the case, then my words do not include you as a person. It may be in the future that I will start my JW vs atheist blogs with disclaimers as a clarification of my perspective. I have just posted another one and would appreciate your reaction. As it is, I have already modified the title to this blog to read "What May …" instead of "What Do …". Making the assertion less definite may soften its negative impact. You may want to review this link which I am thinking about including at the start of my blogs. If you can give me any constructive recommendations, I will have an e-mail link there for your convenience. Next, I would be interested in clarifying your use of the term "creationist or creationism." Since there are two major groups that are recognized as creationists which have very conflicting views, you can't properly reference them with only one word. Many of the main stream "atheists" use the one-word description as a ploy just as they have redefined the word "evolution" to include "adaptation" and then calling the whole concept a "fact." So to properly refer to creationists you need to either call them "young earth or old earth" creationists, just as when you refer to evolution you have to distinguish between "macro and micro (adaptive)" evolution. So I am not sure whether you use the term is a tactic or just because you never realized or agreed with the distinctions I have made. For the record, I am and old earth micro-evolutionist who is in search of the mechanism God may have used to implement macro-evolution. One theory that has Biblical support is that (there are others also), in the past, plants may have been able to quickly adapt to changing conditions which triggered the development of transcription RNA products that could be transmitted horizontally by being ingested by the target animal. That would cause the next generation of the animal to be radically altered by processes that are presently being investigated by the evo-devoists. At present, the current theory is that horizontal transmission of RNA may have played a greater role in diversity than linear transmission of DNA. The plant theory also agrees with the fossil record and the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I have to break off here because my comment registered as being too long. I will try to submit them as two separate comments if I can. Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Nils Jansma , August 13, 2009 AllTimeJeff This is a continuation of my first comment to you. And finally, I would like to expand upon your reference to “Galileo.” I do not think that he was criticized by the Church for being a scientist. He was primarily deemed "vehemently suspect of heresy," for having the audacity to interpret Scripture in competition with the Church along with what was determined to be his audacious scientific views by the leading scientists of his day. Did the Church have sole authority to interpret Scripture or did individuals have that right as the Protestants were claiming? Finally, he pushed the issue to a boil for grossly insulting the Pope at a time when the Protestant Reformation was viewed as a real threat, both religiously and politically. Remember, not all the subjects Galileo covered in his book have been accepted today as being accurate especially his view of the ocean tides as a proof that the earth traveled around the sun. At the time he was considered a radical because the prevailing scientific view was Aristotelian geocentrism. He was proposing to overthrow more than 2,000 years of perceived truth by offering what was considered controversial proof by the scientific establishment. (Sounds something like the Intelligent-Design vs Atheistic-Humanist controversy today) The Pope himself, who was Galileo’s personal friend, originally approved of the Galileo’s book until he (the Pope) was depicted as a fool for voicing his opinion. That was truly both arrogant, which was Galileo’s general demeanor, and stupid which did not appear to be a part of his character. The claim is that Galileo had no idea that he was offending the Pope when he put the Pope’s expressed opinion in the mouth of “Simplicio” who was depicted as continously contridicting himself in very foolish ways. What do you think about Galileo’s innocence in that regard? He got everything he deserved but, fortunately, has the Church and historical revisionists to thank for his present day “hero” status. With regard to the Church hierarchy of his day, he may have had some credibility as a scientists but he was a loose cannon when it came to public relations during a time of political upheaval. Thanks again for your review. In offering my clarifications, I hope I haven’t come across as being overly critical. As I have said in other reviews and blogs, it is my opinion that former Jehovah’s Witnesses who become atheists have done so as a reaction to their disappointment with the Society and what they believe science says about the supernatural. I have made this a subject of study for many years and believe that what I have found out may be new to those who do not believe in God but have had a religious experience in the past. I don’t mean to put people in a box, but Derrek, another critic, says that he is only 90% atheist. I take this to mean that he would be interested in reviewing information that doesn’t distract because of what it says, but does with how it is said. I am still working on the “how it is said” part. Shalom my brother. Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by AllTimeJeff , August 15, 2009 Hi there Nils... I have read and re-read your blog. I don't have an issue with what or how you personally believe regarding how the planet may have come here. I personally do not have an agenda, and if I may be frank, this is what concerns me the most about the intelligent design arguments by theists. If I might boil down what seems to me the biggest complaint by proponents of intelligent design is that evolution simply removes "god" out of the discussion. I sense that proponents want certain discussions of science to include statements that attribute an appreciation for god. Because god is such a personal concept, that varies both within and outside the Christian world, I think that to use the Sciences to demonstrate the god exists is not the job of science. Where intrinsic detail exists, if one wants to use this as evidence of gods existence, the next logical question is "Which god?" Will educators then allow the gods of Islam, Hindu, Taoists, Buddhists and others to be included in a discussion of intelligent design? Or will such attempts be used as an opportunity to indoctrinate a Christian world view as exclusive? Evolution does exist. How one interprets that is also beyond an educators purview. But to point that out is not "anti god". I would not be in favor of intelligent design, given the real potential of it being used for religioius indoctrination. I think that statements in science books that acknowledge that there are those such as yourself who would interpret the evidence as pointing to god would in of themselves not be objectionable. However, where such statements would draw conclusions, then I would have a problem, as that is intellectually dishonest. Example of unobjectionable statement (from my point of view) "As we discuss this chapter on _____ (geology) it is good to acknowledge that there are groups of theistic believers and scientists believe that these facts point to a creator or god that should be worshipped. It is beyond the purvue of this textbook to comment beyond this" Example of objectionable statement (from my point of view) "These examples in fossil/rock formation demonstrate a great deal of intrinsic detail. Surely we can be thankful that almighty god took the time to create this, as demonstrated by the detail." Thats a real difference. I acknowledge that you and I disagree on this, and I respect your right to believe as you do. As far as atheists go, I am preparing a blog on this myself, to which I would enjoy talking further about the matter. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
 written by Anderson , August 15, 2009 They both do not believe in Trinity, they both think Christendom in general suchs. They are both worried about evidence and proof. They both believe in a light coming through a specific source (scientific method, versus Faithfull and Discreet Slave). Also, they both think this blog is not popular because the theme is somewhat overdiscussed. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Darrek , August 15, 2009 ID scares me. I like Jeff's point, Evolution did happen on some scale. Some people think that god started evolution and others think no one started it. There is a documentary showing that the entire ID movement was backed by religious leaders with a agenda to replace science with ID because this country has "lost its way" I think it was a NOVA program check it out. It shows all of the leaked memos of religious leaders agenda for the ID movement, it shows that their goal was not truth but to control the hemorrhaging of there church members. As for Dawkins being judgmental.....I can see why you would still think that. I think what you quoted was him describing God. He was using the point of how people think he is so great and loving, bu he uses real biblical experiences to describe just how loving he is. If someone (even god) were to say all gays should be put to death, it is not judgmental to say that he is homophobic because he told you he is. It is not Judgmental to say that God is in favor of genocide, all one has to do is look up what that means and see if god has sanctioned genocide or commanded it. Genocide is the attempt of killing a entire race or group of people. This could be a entire religious group (the jews) or a entire city or village of people. This is exactly what god has done, he sent I think it was Joshua on a massive crusade to kill everyone in a entire city, that's mothers, fathers, grandchildren, babies and even instructed the soldiers to "gut out" unborn babies that were still in the their mothers belly. Joshua went on to destroy dozens of cities if I remember correctly. So not it is not judgmental to call anyone out on something that they openly say they are. People just do not like there God put in that light, even though it is the truth cause he admits it through out the bible. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by mary , August 15, 2009 do you feel the same about agnostics as you do about atheists? i don't really think atheists try to delude people. they have honest feelings about things. christianity, which i'm getting into again, DOES have odd points like saying isreal is good and that russia is its enemy, as one book i read says,and that israel will take over the middle east. god seems to support genocide! how can a being supposedly loving do that? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Darrek , August 16, 2009 I am curious Mary about your post. Did I read that right where you said you were getting back into christianity? IT sounds like you have already thought out in your mind reasons not to go down that road "god seems to support genocide! how can a being supposedly loving do that?" Or were you making a joke? lol report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by mentull , August 18, 2009 I was debating over and back whether to respond to this or not. Nils, it seems that you have a profound misunderstanding of what an atheist is. Jeff already mentioned that atheists don't club together in the same way that religious people do. If I tell you that I'm an atheist, then you know only one thing about me. Perhaps you would be better off asking what atheists believe, rather than try and tell them what they believe. Specifically about this blog - it is high on opinion, and lacking in real content. You make many assersions about atheists and their beliefs whilst bringing no research or evidence to back these up. You quote - Paraphrasing Hugh Ross, it can be said that: If a person doesn't believe in God, wait a week because new evidence may make that person change his or her mind. Why does this apply only to an atheist, could this not also be true of a theist? You also say - In recent years, this circumstance has resulted in many of the atheistic arguments against God and the Bible becoming out of date, scientifically speaking. Until you start being specific, and bringing some evidence to back up your claims, we can simply ignore them. That said, I don't think that this is the forum to debate religion/theology etc. Rather this is a place for us all to heal and to respect each others opinions. All the best, M report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Nils , August 19, 2009 Thank you for your insightful criticism Mentull, Some of what you said will be valuable to me in helping to improve the information content of my blogs. I don't want to estrange people with inadvertent insults. It is very easy to manifest profound ignorance to a group being criticized without realizing it. For instance, you have said, "You make many assersions about atheists and their beliefs whilst bringing no research or evidence to back these up." As an example, you site my quote of Hugh Ross which says, "If a person doesn't believe in God, wait a week because new evidence may make that person change his or her mind." You then go on to ask, "Why does this apply only to an atheist, could this not also be true of a theist? " For your information, I worded the sentence to restrict the paraphrased quote to "a person [who] doesn't believe in God." If I had worded the statement to say, "If a person who doesn't believe in God and the Bible, …. " then I think it could be applied to both atheists and theists by the enlargement of the referent group. What was it about this sentence that made you think it was confusing? You said, "Jeff already mentioned that atheists don't club together in the same way that religious people do. If I tell you that I'm an atheist, then you know only one thing about me. Perhaps you would be better off asking what atheists believe, rather than try and tell them what they believe." I admit that I may have assumed too much in thinking that atheists had beliefs in common. However, in my defense, I will quote you what the Philosophers Dictionary has to say in defining atheism as, "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further." Now, if this quote is unacceptable to you, then maybe you should complain to where it is found at Answers.com. http://www.answers.com/atheist...&method=3 In conclusion, you said that you, "don't think that this is the forum to debate religion/theology etc. Rather this is a place for us all to heal and to respect each others opinions." I agree, but "respect" is not necessarily lacking in criticism as is demonstrated by your "comments" to me. Apparently, everyone doesn't agree with your assessment. I see many criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses in these blogs. I even see myself characterized as you think I have apparently characterized you. For instance, one of our fellow bloggers said, "Part of the struggle on the path of a Jehovah's Witness (JW) becoming a rationalist, is the fact that most JWs have little or no scientific training. Yet most freethinkers and atheists would agree that science is the biggest factor in their rejection of Bibles as supernaturally inspired texts, religious stories as literal truth, and the actual existence of invisible, supernatural gods, angels and demons." I agree in principle with this statement as expressed in my Blog, about Atheists and JW's and my reason for being attached to Randy's Blog. In forth-coming blogs, I will try to give as much supporting information as time and space permits. I will also assume some statements, like using dictionary definition of words, should normally need no further explanation. Thanks again for your comments. If I misunderstood or misstated your remarks as expressed in your comments, please clarify the matter in another comment. In order to avoid some criticism, I have tried to characterize my motives in a personal note you can find at http://www.nils4.info/a/r.htm . If you are interested, click on this link and take the opportunity to show me how to improve my message of "reconciliation." Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Johnny Casas Marquez , August 30, 2009 I left the wts in 1992. Talked to Jeswits for a while and met Randy and others at that time thru the net. I was known as the ex who lost 50 years of his life in the org. After being an elder and working villages in Mexico plus starting the first english group in Lake Chapala, Mexico in 1987, today I don't believe in God. Why? Main reason is: the bible says he is a god of love.1 If he is a god of love, how could he destroy so many people and poor animals in the flood?? Why did he command the isrealites to kill every inhabitant in the promise land includint children? Yes, I lost faith in a big way. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , August 31, 2009 To Johnny Casas Marquez Thanks for taking the time to add something to this blog. Your question is certainly an important one and has, as you have probably experienced, numerous rationalizations for justifying God's apparent failure, if there is a God to fail. Your experience reminds me of some of my first questions when I became old enough to even consider such matters. You probably know the response I got then from my parents. The Flood victims were wicked and deserved to die. Their children were probably going to be just like their parents, and so they had to go also. While I was growing up, those who died in the Flood were considered as living during a judgment period, just like those who were to die at Armageddon and are, apparently, lost forever. This same moral quandary attaches itself to both David and Israel's aggression in the Promised Land and many other questionable experiences listed in the Bible. In fact, this issue is so important that some have said if there was no evil, there would be no atheists. So the question may really boil down to, "Why does God permit and use Evil to achieve His "ends" and is this "moral?" Rather than rehashing all the arguments that you have already heard, I will outline a series of simplified engineering specifications for achieving what I think God apparently intends. This approach may contexualize the argument and give it a new perspective. 1. Make an independent organic life form with both free will with the prospect of achieving a self-sustaining eternal existence. This existence would follow a period of learning how to be trustworthy and responsible while living in the insecure environment of a slave. 2. Use methods to achieve Spec 1 that will be based upon the principle of a father's love, be philosophically moral, and not subject to logical criticism from any source. 3. Include in your planning the application of permitted strategies that do not violate Spec. 2, but will guarantee the overall success of Spec 1. 4.Equip the life form with built-in means to ensure the survival of a sufficient number which will be instrumental in the over-all achievement of Spec 1. 5.Provide built-in means to minimize the potential suffering of the life form during its organic slave-like existence and include an emergency escape release that meets the criteria of Spec 2. There are numerous additional specifications that could be added to this list, but these are sufficient to analyze why evil might become a temporary "means" to achieve the "ends" listed in Spec 1 while staying within the limitations required by Specs 2 and 3. The first question to ask, Is this a worthwhile project, or should it be scrapped from the start? Next, if you agree that it is a worthwhile project, then you might consider outlining what you would do to meet these specifications and see how they would differ from the way God has chosen as disclosed in the Bible. Remember the most important part of your design proposal. You will have to personally subject yourself to all the trials you will allow to accrue to the prospective free-will life form. What I will do is follow this comment up with a series of blogs enlarging upon the specifications by briefly relating why I think God is doing it right even though some of the details may appear otherwise. Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Johnny Casas Marquez , September 02, 2009  Sorry Nils, I could do better then to get rid of misfits by killing them Also why all the suffering of inocent children with aids, hunger and pain?? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , September 03, 2009 To Johnny Casas Marquez, To eliminate death and its associated pain is certainly an understandable objective. However, how would you deal with misfits and insure that they are "self sufficient and have free will?" (Specification #1) Remember, for someone to be a "misfit," someone else has to suffer, like "innocent children" etc. So maybe the "free will" thing is a little over the top. Maybe we should make sure that no one is "misfit" and then no one else would get hurt. In general, I think that better describes a herbivore animal or mentally retarded children. To meet Spec 1, I think God needs to create humans that would learn for themselves that unselfishness is the only type of behavior that can socially endure. They should realize that all selfishness is self-destructive and cannot coexist with others. Only if they had unselfishness "written on their hearts," so to speak, would they become able to exist forever in a like minded society. That, apparently, is just what God intends. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) I admit that this is a very complicated project and not one with a simple solution. This is especially true in the light of Paul's advice forbidding the selection of inexperienced Elders at 1 Timothy 3:6. Now, ask yourself, Who appointed the Devil to his position of authority and why? Well, we know that it was God who apparently made the appointment (Luke 4:5-6) but we don't know why for sure. Was it a mistake? Apparently not, because God doesn't make mistakes. So there must have been a reason for God to appoint the Devil to a position of responsibility full well knowing in advance he (the Devil) couldn't handle it. The question is, by doing so, did God violate Specifications 2 & 3? What do you think? 1Timothy 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil . Luke 4:5-6 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. Jeremiah 31:31-34 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, (32) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. (33) But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (34) And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , September 05, 2009 To AllTimeJeff Note: This comment is in two parts because it is not "brief" enouth as originally planned. This is a late response because I got a number of interesting comments on my blog just after yours came. Normally, I try to answer them in sequence, but sometimes I get so excited about a particular comment, I respond immediately and run the risk of forgetting an earlier one. That is what happened to yours. I appreciate your appraisal that my blog wasn't that offensive. I know it offended some because they said so explicitly. I only have a brief statement to make to you, or should I say I am starting out that way but have no idea how brief it will actually be. Anyway, with reference to your concerns about Intelligent Design, I am not sure you are being fair. You imply that IDers use their scientific ideas as a tool to convert others to accept their god. However, the IDers I associate with use current scientific arguments to rebut those set out by a segment of the scientific community that persists in promoting their godless ideology through their outspoken interpretation of scientific evidence. In fact, not to be too critical, if you review most atheist apologists who were formerly religious, you will find that they often support their present position on a scientific platform as the reason for leaving the superstitious influence of religion. Wouldn't you say that implies that they suppose science disproves God? I agree with you that God's existence is beyond science to probe directly. However, that also applies to historical macro evolution or even history itself. That means that neither evolutionists nor ancient historians have direct scientific corroboration to support definite statements made about the relative descent of man or the origin of life. But, says the scientist, we do not need direct evidence, because we can infer all the facts we need from an examination of the fossil record or current testing. Since the basic assumption of science is anti-supernatural, it is automatically inferred that all evidence, no matter how intelligently designed it appears to be, supports the fact that there is no god. From an IDers point of view, that anti-supernatural assumption is a fundamental bias that clouds scientific judgment. IDers look at the same evidence and infer the existence of high intelligence without defining who that intelligence might be. Well, you might say, obviously, the intelligence is God. That is only an opinion that might, but not necessarily, be true. Regarding the question of, "Which God?" -- you can detect the existence of intelligence without knowing the source. Who the intelligence is becomes a religious and philosophical question that needs to be refined using other areas of knowledge. That there is or is not evidence of intelligence is clearly a scientific issue, in my opinion. (Continued next comment) report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , September 05, 2009 To AllTimeJeff (continued) To me, one of the most interesting emerging topics of study today is Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development). I am in the process of doing a critique on a book by Sean Carroll entitled "Endless Forms Most Beautiful." This title is taken from the last few words of Darwin's "Origin" book. To learn more about Sean Carroll follow this link http://www.nils4.info/a/sctk . SC is a devout evolutionist of the highest order. On page 142 of his book, Carroll includes Figure 6.2 (http://www.nils4.info/a/urb ) which identifies a phantom creature called Urbilateria which is assigned a Precambrian existence. This creature is set forth as the ancestor to almost every living creature today except for two phyla. It is hypothesized that this, yet-to-be-found creature must have had a, quoting Carroll, "tool kit of at least six or seven Hox genes, Pax-6, Distal-less, tinman, and a few hundred more body-building genes." The existence of this phantom fossil is deemed necessary to explain the phyletic diversity associated with the Cambrian Explosion which has been called a "biological Big Bang." This mysterious soft-bodied creature apparently had a remarkable set of genes that can be used over and over to produce almost every body style existing today simply by altering various embryonic development times with an incredibly large series of genetic switches created, according to evolutionists, by random chance. There are really no competitive processes known that would design such a fabulous does-all genetic kit for future use. Filling this evolutionary hole is going to take some really creative thinking. The interesting thing about this is that if they find a natural process that performs this miracle, that is even more of an inference of Intelligent Design because of its anticipation of a future need. However, because of the assumption that there is no "supernatural," the only fact needed to prove evolution is the existence of anything. Accordingly, if something exists, it must have evolved no matter how irreducible or complex the change process may be, like the incredible body forming genetic tool kits. A human arm, a fish fin, a bat's wing, a fly's wing are all formed by the same group of genes with only their development rates being regulated by specially placed genetic switches. To account of the all this fabulous pervasive hardware naturally, they have to find a common ancestor for a starter. Of course, they still haven't found Urbilateria yet. From an IDers point of view, the evidence now supports Intelligence Design and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. I am sure that not many school kids know these facts because they are Politically Incorrect and you can, as a teacher, lose your job if you bring such evidence to a science classroom. So, Jeff, I think your characterization of Intelligent Design is unfair. Until you can get the Atheist community to stop promoting their godless science, the IDers can not let up their struggle for the acknowledgement of an intelligent designer based upon accurate scientific inference. Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by AllTimeJeff , September 05, 2009 Hi there Nils. Figuring out what to believe in, or as the case may be, what not to believe in, is something we all must do, and that is especially true for exiting Jehovah's Witnesses. As such, while I respect your right to believe what you will, I don't have a desire to get into a drawn out debate on the matter, knowing that we both have different points of view. Perhaps it would be helpful before I address a couple of your points clarify my beliefs a bit more. I don't think that teaching evolution in school, which is scientifically accurate means that god is eliminated out of the discussion. If parent's for example want to attribute what science finds to god and try to inculcate that in their children privately, then that is their happy right. However, it is not the right of schools to promote a religion or a religious inspired ideology, and that brings me to the one thing I wish to address in your response to me. Nils/Pilgrim said: "You imply that IDers use their scientific ideas as a tool to convert others to accept their god." Yes I do. Nils/Pilgrim said: "However, the IDers I associate with use current scientific arguments to rebut those set out by a segment of the scientific community that persists in promoting their godless ideology through their outspoken interpretation of scientific evidence." Nils, I must say that your premise is most inaccurate. "Godless ideology"? That is neither accurate fair. School textbooks that demonstrate evolution do not promote god. Nor should they. School is for facts. Home is where faith, god, and religion should stay. Simply put, there is no "outspoken interpretation" in textbooks. There is merely an absence of crediting what is found in nature to a higher being. As well they should. Frankly, many other people and students of differing religious beliefs would be most offended at having a specific point of view crediting a Christian inspired "Intelligent Design" theory taught as fact in schools. Nils/Pilgrim said: "...if you review most atheist apologists who were formerly religious, you will find that they often support their present position on a scientific platform as the reason for leaving the superstitious influence of religion. Wouldn't you say that implies that they suppose science disproves God?" No Nils, it doesn't imply that at all. Educators of all stripes have personal beliefs, as they should have. Does this color the factual evidence Science has uncovered? Not at all. Even if a scientist vociferously is an atheist, that doesn't color what he finds. The fact is, god isn't there. Nils, IDers are arguing for the right to interpret Scientific evidence to show that "god" exists. Science doesn't teach in schools that god doesn't exist. Science does teach and point out that science hasn't seen god or a specific personality of a higher power who could possibly take credit for how we "got here". Scientists have the responsibility to say "We see no evidence of a god." THAT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DOESN'T EXIST! It simply means that they are not willing to interpret their own evidence. Nils, I don't have to interpret your existence. Because "god" hasn't shown himself, he must rely on people to point him out, when he could in fact, do this for himself. At best, "god" must be interpreted by IDers. Thus, IDers are the ones who lack evidence, not Science. Science make's no claims that god doesn't exist. They merely point out that there is no direct evidence of "god". ("God" being a specific higher power, with personality, name, etc) (end of Part I) report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by AllTimeJeff , September 05, 2009 (Part II) You have pointed out some theories that are explored, and they are indeed fascinating. I am also aware that there are theistic scientists who "see" god in all of nature. And that is fine. But they don't talk to god, see god, feel god. They only see at best what god has most certainly left behind. (if you're definition of god is what is true) I think a fair question to ask you Nils is, in a nutshell, what do you want to be taught in schools? Do you believe that schools should teach that "god" definitely created all that Science discovers and present such as fact? Nils, "god" could make this a lot easier on you by revealing himself. Even if one comes across a built house, and conclude that the house didn't just evolve, thats fine with me. Where is the builder and designer? Why has he abandoned his house to people who treat it so poorly. Nils, at best, even if you are right, and this planet was indeed created, then I would suggest that makes god out to be a bit of a neglectful dis-interested god in the fashion of the Greeks. It hardly lends any credence that he should be worshipped, sought out, or put faith in. Too many billions of people have come and gone over thousands of years for god to continue to be a no show. If god wants to take credit for his creation, he certainly is more then welcome to do that on his own. I am afraid IDers just don't cut it for me. Sorry. In conclusion, you said Nils/Pilgrim: "Until you can get the Atheist community to stop promoting their godless science, the IDers can not let up their struggle for the acknowledgement of an intelligent designer based upon accurate scientific inference." Until god actually shows up, the world will continue as godless as it has for the last several thousand years. It will cease to be godless when god shows up and makes himself manifest. There are simply too many prevelant and differing theories, your's included, to be certain. We live in a godless world. We live among people who continue to pine for god, and this generation is no different from all other generations: God has been a global no show, and even if he might "speak" to some personally, that is not enough to insist that science teach as factual that this world was created, when god himself has not ever tried to take credit for it. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Pilgrim , September 06, 2009 To AllTime Jeff, Again, I appreciate your comments Jeff. I agree with your statement saying, "I don't have a desire to get into a drawn out debate on the matter, knowing that we both have different points of view." For this reason, I won't reply in any detail to the criticisms that followed. I will note, however, what you said about my view of the IDers I associate with who, I say, are not interested in teaching ID as a subject but rather only be allowed to offer alternate scientific views in rebuttal to evolutionary views. ------ Nils/Pilgrim said: "However, the IDers I associate with use current scientific arguments to rebut those set out by a segment of the scientific community that persists in promoting their godless ideology through their outspoken interpretation of scientific evidence." Jeff's response: Nils, I must say that your premise is most inaccurate. "Godless ideology"? That is neither accurate fair. School textbooks that demonstrate evolution do not promote god. Nor should they. School is for facts. Home is where faith, god, and religion should stay." ------------- I think your response indicates to me that you are apparently misinformed about the issue Jeff. All science is base upon the dogma that "the supernatural does not exist." That makes the subject of science "atheistic" by definition. All accepted science books are, therefore, also atheistic by definition. So, even though the "facts" may indicate intelligent design, I assume that you categorically dismiss that evidence because of your agreement with the atheistic view that there "is no supernatural." Is that right Jeff? In conclusion, I want to answer the question you posed to me about what I "want to be taught in schools." Your question was as follows: -------- Jeff asked: "I think a fair question to ask you Nils is, in a nutshell, what do you want to be taught in schools? Do you believe that schools should teach that "god" definitely created all that Science discovers and present such as fact?" ------ My answer is consistent with the remark above that you labeled "inaccurate." Rather than tell you myself, I will let the Discovery Institute voice its opinion to avoid any misunderstanding. Their view toward what should be taught in classrooms specifically excludes the subject of "Intelligent Design." They simply believe that when the evidence is subject to various interpretations, students should be allowed to hear intelligent design arguments that support design inferences. That information is found at the following internet link, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...publi.html . Note, this site also expands upon the relationship between religion and science that may be very important to those that apparently view IDers as traditional "creationists." Below is a quote taken from that site supporting my statement above. ----- "Discovery Institute does not advocate mandating intelligent design in schools. But in fact, Discovery Institute's preferred policy for education is founded upon finding "a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on": As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate or require the teaching the theory of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Recognizing the potential for sharp conflict in this area, Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on. ------ " Jeff, if you would like, I am willing to respond in like manner to the rest of your criticisms of my opinions. So please let me know if you would like any more clarifications. Thanks again for your interest in my blog. Nils report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by AllTimeJeff , September 07, 2009 Nils I thank you in turn for your response. I just want to say that my "criticism" as you put it is nothing more then me voicing disagreement. I have learned that this is something you feel strongly about, and the fact that it is debated is healthy for all. Perhaps at another appropriate time, we can exchange ideas further. It sounded to me like you were looking for a more "common ground" approach then others I have heard, which is commendable. For my part, I am not against a school informing it's students of how other religious groups interpret what science finds, which includes the ID theory. Exposure to all ideas, along with the corresponding evidence might be a step in the right direction. Kind regards Jeff report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
|
Those former Jehovah's Witnesses, with whom I have become familiar and who are now atheists, have said that it was science that opened their eyes to the real truth. I personally have traveled a similar road, but with a different outcome. It has been my experience that the more one learns about the subject of science as it relates to the earth and humans, the more one appreciates how advanced the Bible is regarding the earth's history. Paraphrasing Hugh Ross, it can be said that: If a person doesn't believe in God, wait a week because new evidence may make that person change his or her mind. In recent years, this circumstance has resulted in many of the atheistic arguments against God and the Bible becoming out of date, scientifically speaking.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed