Would some of us be better off as Witnesses? (page 10)

donkey

Proctologists are DOCTORS too...

Dumb ASS

donkey

This may be your experience, but the experience of many millions of persons, including myself, is, clearly, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that God is active in the affairs of humans.

I assume DOCTOR that you use the word "evidence" very liberally here. Please for the sake of the less intelligent morsels such as myself could you provide a definition of the word "evidence" as well as how it is used in the scientific method and what makes "evidence" credible or untrue.

Once you have done that perhaps you could then supply the "evidence" of which you speak so and we will put it through the process of crediblility. If it turns out to be credible I will be reformed and you will, DOCTOR, will have helped an ASS to see the error of his ways.

Submitted by a simple donkey

donkey

"Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in Bible-Science Newsletter [1988] and articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly [1980], CSSHQ [1986], and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal [1991, 1992]).[2]
[2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine Creation ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's The Criterion (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was *not* solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2).

See here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
and how about this for intellectual honesty:
Jerry Bergman, in an article about Nebraska Man ( The History of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii Hominoidea , Creation Science Research Quarterly, 30:27-34, 1993) makes the following statement:
Nebraska man also had a great patriotic significance because it was the first evidence, according to Osborn,
after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great Western territory of a [higher] primate. Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America, and some speculated that it may even prove that mankind in North America predated European and African humans. We have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery (quoted in Blinderman, 1985, p.48)
However, the quoted paper (Blinderman 1985: The curious case of Nebraska man. Science 85, June:47-9) makes no such statement! Blinderman said:
So Nebraska Man had great patriotic significance. "This is the very first evidence," Osborn wrote, "after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great western territory, of a [higher] Primate. ... we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery ...." (ellipses by Blinderman)
The references to "ape-man" and "proof" were added, either by Bergman or by a source which he copied from. In fact, although Osborn did misidentify the Nebraska Man tooth as a primate, he deliberately did not make any claims to its status as an ape-man.
So yes perhaps you would have been better off to remain a JW!!!

Jerry Bergman

As to you never even took an interest in my questions to you about the bible being authentic from god. I asked if you studied the skeptical side and you rode right past my post. Why? I am very interested in this question (but have so much to respond to that time is a problem). A ton of books exist on the question of Biblical inspiration, and I have read maybe 30 of them. One has been advertised on this site. My conclusion is, of all books that claim to be inspired that have survived to today and still have adherents, it is my conclusion that the Bible has the most evidence by far to back up this claim. I am not saying I understand all of it, but that of the parts that I have studied, its claims are supported by fact and scientific study. Check out the book advertised on this site (a good start). Some are written by secular non believers and do a good job making a case for the Bibles authenticity .

Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 28 December 2002 16:20:20

Jerry Bergman

Donkey I have already responded extensively to this slander. Please see http://www.rae.org/notracist.html It is a good idea to do one's home work before spreading malicious slander. Also, the brief of my BGSU case is also on the Internet at: http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm: (or use http://www.rae.org/index.html . then click on Bergman BGSU Case). I am amazed at the hate, slander and lies manifested by so many when one is trying to discuss religion.

Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 28 December 2002 13:8:54

gumby

Hi Jerry,

I understand your feeling about how the subject of religion can bring out some negative natures in people.....I am one of them...... but trying to be "more nice".

I have learned a bit from some who are able to keep their temper down and try to reason.Manytimes certain ones will not reason and act....robotic in their answers. These ones really TRY your patience.

You said..."My conclusion is, of all books that claim to be inspired that have survived to today and still have adherents, it is my conclusion that the Bible has the most evidence by far to back up this claim

Do you feel these two reasons are strong enough to convince most that the bible is true?

donkey

I am amazed at the hate, slander and lies manifested by so many when one is trying to discuss religion

Jerry,

I never expressed any hatred towards you - I merely quoted what was said. My own feelings about you were NOT expressed. I don't know your character as a person one on one.

From what I am seeing on this thread I DON'T think a whole lot of you as a scientist though. And you are also one who is starting to stir things up by calling atheists such as myself bitter etc. If you want to argue using science and the scientific method as far as commonly acceptable standards of evidence then you might find you pro-god arguments more easily received.

Even an ASS knows you need PROOF to say it is SO.

Edited by - donkey on 28 December 2002 14:17:31

donkey

Jerry,

Please excuse me - I am not very smart - I am a simple donkey who never even graduated from high school. Perhaps therefore it is not worth any of your time to even speak with miscreants such as myself. Thanks for the links - it is an interesting site http://www.rae.org and I will spend some time reading it (I will be sure to ask smart folk wahat the big words mean).

Just call me Jack!!

waiting

Obviously, Dr. Bergman *might* have gotten off to a rocky start on this thread. BUT! Englishman put up a similar thread a long time ago - particularily addressing the issue of old jw's. And......Eman's thread went over easily.

Paraphrasing: "Are old jw's better off in or out of the org?" Some responded: "That depends."

1. They've spent their life believing in a standard, a code, a hope. Just what would that be replaced with....and do they have the time to replace it?

2. If they left, what family would they have? What friends? What community?

3. Who would deal with the most-likely depression (as old people are prone to it anyway due to mental & physical health issues.) of losing "our love of our lives?"

4. Are WE going to take the time (years) to help them adjust? Are WE going to take them into our homes, if necessary?

My husband was adament about showing his 80 yr. old mother the truth about The Truth. I asked him what he was going to do with her when she was devasted, and lost her total belief system? Did he think she had the physical time to rebuild her life, emotions & community?

Were we prepared to take on her whole social structure, along with taking on so much of her concerns already? Personally, I think for her, to stay in the org. is probably the best situation for her. Others? Depends on them & their own circumstances. I don't think a blanket yes/no can be said.

And not everyone is an independent thinker. Some will NEVER be thinkers. Some can't even get to the independent stage. Would suggest that's why there are so many Privates/lower echelons in the military? Not all "lifers" in the military are officers. Many are followers. Does that make them wrong? Just depends on the individual, imho.

waiting

Jerry Bergman

Jack Don't put yourself down!! Some of the brightest people I know (including some of my closest intellectual friends) never set foot in a college. If you can present evidence (or evidence of the research) most of us don't care what your formal education is! Also I never said all ExWitnesses who became atheists were bitter, only that I know of some (actually a fair number) who are very bitter. If you are an ExWitness and not better, than the comment does not apply to you (and it should not bother you that I made this observation). Actually, most of the exWitnesses that I have associated with for the past 25 years became active Christians, so it takes some getting used to to process the responses of those who are not similar to those I am used to. This is my problem, not those who this label does not fit.

Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?

Share this