The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OldGenerationDude
    OldGenerationDude

    Thanks for the welcome, everyone.

    Oh, and VM44--Thanks, but you're barking up a tree without a cat in it.

    I'm a Jew. I was born into a Jewish family, was a Witness for a brief time and now back on the outside, regardless if I am secular or religious or what-not, I am still a Jew.

    Therefore the arguments in a book like this "God and the Folly of Faith" is just as close-minded an offering as that Awake! magazine was when it had that ridiculous lead series of articles about "CB Radio"! (I bet that flew over nicely in the rest of non-America.)

    So don't give me some book that limits itself to complaints against Christianity. It doesn't apply to me. Not only is a Jewish perspective almost never taken into consideration by this author, there is even less room given to anything more Eastern, and even secular from an Eastern point of view. Christianity is not the only game in town. If this author were truly open-minded and enlightened he wouldn't have published such a narrow argument.

    Besides, if we're not JWs anymore, why are we still pointing to books and other publications as if they hold all the answers or are the "nails into the coffin" on this subject? My bubbe would rather eat a pork chop than find me peddling books and tracts to strangers again.

  • VM44
    VM44

    Hi OldGenerationDude,

    Thank you for your comments, I should mention that I have not read the book whose Amazon link I posted. My intent was to make known that this book on "science and faith" exists.

    This author, Victor J. Stenger, has written many other books on the topic of Science and God, as can be seen on his Amazon author's page.

    Whether it is worthwhile reading these books is something a person has to discover for themself.

    http://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA/

  • dark angle
    dark angle

    @ODG,

    One should not have an open mind. people can put crap & junk on it. One should have a decerning mind, grounded on reality, not on myths & fantacies.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    As OGD has ably shown, the whole thing is a silly argument based on a false boxing match with "Science" in the red corner and "Religion" in the blue.

    As with all debate, it is necessary to define your terms or you get nowhere, so for D'souza or whatever his name was to introduce quesions that are purely Philosophical in nature to a debate supposedly about Science and Religion is just plain pointless.

    Philosophers do have answers to those questions, often answers very similar to the great thinkers of the jewish world of which OGD is no doubt aware, but the whole quality of this "debate" is in doubt if they don't stick to the areas of discussion that they started off with.

    (I haven't had time to listen to it, so I am condemning it on what posters have written above, naughty I know)

  • OldGenerationDude
    OldGenerationDude

    My apologies, VM44. My reply was meant to be seen as a bit of tongue-and-cheek humor (thus the reference to my bubee, who in reality has passed on). I forget that unless we make it clear, humor might not be read into our comments. I was trying to lighten things up a bit, lest I been seen as even taking myself too seriously.

    And dark angle, the reference to an "open mind" is the one commonly used in the English vernacular, namely to be open to the possibilities, such as that my view on things can be incorrect. I'm sure, DA, that you wouldn't want me to close my mind to that possibility, are you?

    But don't think I am looking down on atheism. In fact, I support atheists and have been active in fighting for their civil rights for a couple of years now. I don't have a beef against atheism.

    What I do have a problem with is when we raise anything, religious or secular, to the same heights the Watchtower raises its doctrine to: the Great Panacea, and answer to all things.

    And I also hate it when people claim that another ex-JWs beliefs or philosophies are "crap" or "junk." I don't believe atheism or religion is crap or junk. I do believe this particular debate about science vs. religion is misleading, but that doesn't mean that I think atheists are close minded or not grounded in reality for their beliefs. Why do you tear down your fellow ex-JW who may now embrace a religion or some aspects of spirituality by use of such language? Is it because you miss the feeling of having "the Truth" the Watchtower gave you? It's possible, because they taught us to feel that way. Should we leave that type of behavior behind with the Witnesses who love to be that and give each other support? We’ve all had so much rejection and hatred already from the JWs!

    The reason behind what I posted and what I have been saying is not because I have anything against atheism or the general debate of science/religion itself. I am trying to expose how the Watchtower sometimes still infects our way of thinking and acting even once we leave. There's no difference between a Jehovah's Witness who claims they have it right and that other beliefs are crap and junk and ourselves if claim we have it right and are calling the beliefs of others crap or junk. We just changed brand names, but have kept the same clothing; we've adopted a new flavor, but its still "Kool-Aid."

    Anyone who reads my words: if you are an exJW, no matter what you choose to believe after leaving the Watchtower behind, you have my support. I don't think anyone or their choices--unless they are just Watchtowerisms "wearing sheep's clothing"--are crap or junk. Even if you cherish conclusions and values different from mine, I will do more than tolerate them and you, I will always have your back and accept them and you. You don't have to believe like me to have my friendship, my love, my support and my respect.

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    It has refuted the right-hand path religions all the time--the very religions trying to hold back progress. Christi-SCAM-ity has been proven false with science: Copernicus and Galileo both did a fine job at doing that.

    However, I don't think science and religion are totally incompatible. At present, the most honest and sincere religious groups (which I believe are spiritual Satanists) are taking one end, and science (as long as right-hand path religion can keep its grubby paws off it) is taking the other. At some point, they will meet. Already, science has proven the existence of the aura (kirlian photography) and bioelectricity. They have proven that they can get some idea of what a person is thinking using electrodes, and they can influence how a person thinks (using cell phone towers, CFL light bulbs, and anything else that emits radiation at those frequencies). And the more they play with sub-atomic particles, the closer they are to finding the actual 4 elements (at this point, I find the theory of 4 elements represented by air, fire, water, and earth actually plausible because of this).

    I can only hope science and religion do meet. Then science can make it easier for the average person to communicate directly with Satan and His Demons. Once it becomes as common as making a cell phone call is today, I don't think people will continue to be terrified by Satan. If anything, most of us will realize Satan is our friend and Jehovah the enemy. Once that happens, anyone would have to be incredibly deluded or determined to take down the human race to continue Judaism, Christi-SCAM-ity, or Islam.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    I can only hope science and religion do meet. Then science can make it easier for the average person to communicate directly with Satan and His Demons.

    I just need to take a WEE bit of issue with you here WT. I mean, be honest. You made this comment just to rile up believers! It was rude and disrespectful. People put a great deal of time and energy into their beliefs and you come along and flippantly commit blashphemy. What motivates you to be so callous? I seriously question your spirituality.

    Everyone knows that there is no improving on black masses, seances, and ouija boards. To suggest that it would take science to better our communication with the powerful one is just arrogant. No run and have some sex, and maybe you'll be forgiven.

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    dark angle “One should not have an open mind. people can put crap & junk on it. ”

    I appreciate you could not resist making your amusing commment.

    Realistically - an open mind is a mind that is not closed to new ideas or unable to alter as it grows. It is open to the advancement of science and careful examination new evidence. Being open it is able to throw out junk that it may have taken in.

    A closed mind is usually full of junk that it has inherited and has no way of disposing of.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    But when used in everyday debate, generally someone is accused of not having an open mind because they won't agree. If someone has something strange happen, like their bowl of spaghetti floated off the table, and they jump to the conclusion that it's spirits, I'll say we should look into other possiblities first. Earthquake, smurf, hallucination, strange gases---whatever. They insist that there is NO other explanation, and if I push, then I get accused of being closed minded. It is ironic of course, since it is they that have closed off all possiblities but spirits.

    NC

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    No. Science has not refuted religion, and by itself, it never will.

    I do believe, however, there will be a time we [ humans ] will look back at our 10K years of belief and say, "What the hell was that all about?"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit