Indeed!
The evidence for evolution from genetics and developmental biology is growing exponentially.
It's a pity the science-deniers don't make an effort to grasp the depths of their willful ignorance.
Oh look page 12 and still nothing.
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC 371 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DJS
Cofty,
Once again you carry the non-theist banner. I don't know how you do it. I view the theists kinda sorta like they are trolls and try to ignore them. I will have to say that my few months on this site have been a big dissapointment; I thought (don't know why I just did) that the ex-JWs would show more intelligence and rational though process. I was wrong. Cofty, save your arguments. Ignore the theists. You can't/won't change them. But you are right; they continue to spew nonsense as though it is rational or factual. And they will repeat the same ridiculous premise (I won't honor them by calling it an argument) over and over as though repeating it is going to give it credibility.
Some of them will ultimately figure it out on their own. Some of them won't. Leave them with their ignorance. It is their friend.
-
cofty
DJS - I'm sure you're right that few if any theists will be persuaded by reason.
There are many people who read threads like this with an enquiring mind. This thread has over 4000 views.
Perhaps they read the evidence on threads like The Common Ancestry Thread... and wonder whether there might not be another side to the story.
Threads like this one help to answer that sort of question. There isn't.
Here we have a theist's thread and 12 pages in, there is still not a single shred of evidence to support his/her assertion.
Every time he/she posts a copy-paste or video, somebody exposes why it is unscientific nonsense, and not a single word has been offered in reply.
There is only one side to the topic of evolution. It is settled beyond all sensible doubt. Humans evolved over millions of years from non-human ancestors. This fact is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat. Nobody rejects this fact for evidence-based reasons but for reasons of religious dogma.
-
DJS
Cofty,
As usual well stated. Theists however aren't likely to let something as trivial as facts get in the way of their cherished beliefs. Even if all of the rational scientific data did not exist, if anyone took a giant step back and truly and intelligently analyzed the whole deity thing in light of the age of the universe, the (supposedly) ONLY guidebook provided by such deity (geesh, really? I mean REALLY) and the ridiclousness of the entire premise he or she would quickly come to the same conclusions that we non-theists arrived at a long time ago.
But believing gives them something warm and fuzzy; its kind of like a securiity blanket. Still, I know what you say about the potential to help others, but you, dear sir, are a better man than I. I have no patience for utter stupidity and even less for misplaced arrogance, all of which the theists express. If you truly have it, bring it. If not, show some humility. Or shut the eff up.
-
tec
But believing gives them something warm and fuzzy; its kind of like a securiity blanket. Still, I know what you say about the potential to help others, but you, dear sir, are a better man than I. I have no patience for utter stupidity and even less for misplaced arrogance, all of which the theists express.
And statements like this are not arrogant?
Not all theists reject evolution; not all theists accept evolution; some accept it to a point but also understand that new evidence could well change the picture currently presented; some are simply wait and see, understanding that this is what science has discovered to date.
Not that it matters. This is a completely manufactured problem, based on an interpretation of the Bible. But evolution is merely a PROCESS. It says nothing about God, other than revealing creation in more detail (if you believe in God). It does not render Him useless anymore than a computer program renders the software designer useless. (and no, I do not buy into the whole computer design proves God exists; that was not the point of that example)
(Though the issues are different, this constant arguing for or against reminds me of the argument: the universe is eternal... no, the universe had a beginning. Well, the universe, it seems, DID have a beginning. And for some reason that I forget, some religous people are now arguing against the big bang... why? That makes no sense to me. It is evidence FOR a beginning)
I realize that people do like a good discussion/debate... even on issues that have been done to death... and I am no exception... so I am not knocking that. Those are just my thoughts and this issue.
Peace,
tammy
-
DJS
Tammy,
I was one of those who got a warm and fuzzing feeling from believing, so it isn't arrogance at all. It is simply expressing the obvious. That's how I felt when I was a devout JW believer. As to 'debating,' I wouldn't call anything associated with the theist/non-theist discussions a debate. There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts; and 2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
Every other tactic or strategy is dishonest. Non-theists can bring up facts about the age of the universe, the planet and the time humans have been on it for example. Theists can discuss a book that has been around for a very very short period of time in comparison that has some historical validity but is primarily full of stories, myths and legends that, while entertaining, are not facts.
That is why Cofty keeps bringing up the lack of 'facts' when he 'debates' these topics. All we really had when we were JWs is belief. In invisible make believe friends. In stories which couldn't possibly be proved as factual. And the logic behind whether the Bible or the god(s) in the Bible are real? Geesh Tammy, can't we move beyond that? It isn't rational. It doesn't stand up to the facts. It only requires belief, which is one step up in the evolutionary ladder for scentient beings. I only believe in what can be proven, or damn near proven, based on scientiific analysis and empirical data. That's it.
And once former JWs start talking about scripture or god or jesus or the bible in terms of a serious debate about the universe, the non-theists want to scream. Keeping those topics to yourselves while you discuss all things JW and Bible would allow you to talk amongst yourselves. Non-theists rarely would join your conversatioins. But when you venture out into the world of rational, support your argument by facts discussions, it isn't going to be pretty. And you will never ever have anything approaching what would be considered a 'debate' in the empirical sense. I feel. I believe. I think. I know. I can prove. That's the continuum. Believing can occur without any thinking process. No serious 'debate' can occur with chimps and others who haven't moved any further steps beyond the feeling/reactionary beginnings of our evolutionary ancestor caves than to 'believe.' Because no one can ever prove the existence of make believe creatures, legends and fairy tales. But believe me Tammy, if that changes and your god - or anyone elses - finally makes themselves CLEARLY known (and please don't give me any talk about how he is clealry known in the wind, or nature or blah blah blah) I will change my view.
And I will say it again; I am simply amazed at the ex-JWs who want to hold on to a failed belief system. It hurts to take down the wall; I know. I did it. But down it came. And I am happier and freer than ever and would never ever go back in a million years to the 'belief' of make believe creatures, arguing scripture and other such nonsense. Arrgghh! We KNEW we had the 'truth' as JWs. We just KNEW it. Well, guess what. We were wrong. Be humble and admit it. I was wrong. I was a dumb-ass. I learned from it and moved on. I didn't stay a dumb-ass by thinking that there was some other version of the 'truth' out there or that my 'lord' or 'savior' or 'god' or 'bible' had something for me or could be 'found' in any manner. Didn't the JWs teach us anything?
-
tec
DJS, it is arrogance... at the least no less arrogance than what you are accusing theists of having - to assume that just because you were a certain way as a believer, that all are that way. Then to call theists (or even just jws), chimps on the evolutionary scale that you are above... well, how is that not arrogance?
I do agree with you on one point though... there are no versions of the truth out there. There is simply the Truth: Christ. The wts is a 'failed belief system"... in that they are not the Truth... but that just means you discard them. No reason you should have to discard Christ and God as well, though you might want to discard their teachings ABOUT Christ and God, and start anew... with Christ, showing God.
Now if you personally find no evidence for Christ and God (not the wts 'jehovah') beyond the wts, that is for you to decide what to do... and live and let live. It does not make you a good or bad person; the same as being a theist does not make one a good or bad person. But just because you have not found evidence leading you to Christ and God, does not mean that others have not, or that they are irrational, illogical, dishonest, or 'chimps' just below you on the evolutionary ladder. Painting everyone who does not believe or live the same as you, with the same brush... isn't that what the jws teach and do?
I believed before the jws, and they never stole that from me after I stopped studying with them. But I did not believe because of any warm fuzzy feeling... rather I believed because of the truth that I heard in Christ. The love. The mercy and forgiveness.
My point is that people are different, and just because you felt a certain way, does not mean that everyone felt or feels that certain way. It is not logical or rational to think otherwise.
Peace to you,
tammy
-
cofty
It (evolution) does not render Him useless
Actually it does.
If god exists then existing is all he/she/it does.
-
DJS
Tammy,
I couldn't agree more with what you say, as I don't think we are really in disagreement. My point is that the theists are free to speak amongst themselves and discuss scripture or their version of imaginary friends all they wish. Few of the non-theists bother to enter such discussions. I don't enter them at all. I repsect relgious beliefs and know that religion, appropriately managed, can bring positive things to a person's life. If the topic is clearly religious in nature, it has been my experience on this board that the vast majority of non-theists refrain from entering. That is humility. And respect.
But when the topic is evolution or a general open forum discussion on similar topics, especially when theists themselves post a new thread or topic on such matters, then bring facts or, as it has been pointed out many times, your 'argument' will be bludgeoned. That isn't arrogance Tammy (and if we do it right we won't attack the one bringing the argument, just the argement itself). It would be arrogant for us non-theists to enter your forums or speciallydesigned bible/god threads to interject. We rarely do it. But theists don't seem to mind blathering on and on and on mindlessly about their theism on topics about evolution, the age or inception of the universe, etc. with god concepts.
That isnn't debate Tammy. I deeply respect your right to believe. When you bring it out in the open in such a forum, bring facts or be humble enough to qualify your statements thusly: "Although I know I can't actually prove any of this, I believe or feel . . . " I would have a lot more respect for the theists if they did. To start quoting scripture, to speak as if your argument actually has real basis or get in a circular reasoning discussion about 'feelings' about god and jesus ad nauseum should be reserved for your own threads. Otherwise, bring facts or prepare to feel the burn of rational, factual analytical real debate.
Cofty says this much better than I. But none of the theists seem to listen or hear. But I promise Tammy to stay out of clearly theist discussions.
It isn't debate when you are talking about your feelings or your beliefs. It is angst, therapy, opining or something similar. And it is arrogantly wasting everyone's time tying to proselytize. I have begun a doctorate program; it will take me a few years to complete. But at the end of that will hopefully be an even better understanding of the need to rationally and analytically examine things. Every thing. If I can't prove it or support it at a very high level by empirical data or scientific observation/study, I discard it.
It's kind of like the line from Tom Cruise character in a Few Good Men (or something similar) "Don't tell me what we know. Tell me what we can prove."
-
jgnat
It is not arrogance to demand science-level evidence on a thread challenging a scientific concept.
If we stuck to what is "nice", what "feels good", if we bow to "majority rules" and dismiss scientific rigor as "arrogant", we might still have people being blessed in our hospitals through the laying on of hands but dying of sepsis.