• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If believers go to their grave with the hope of something better to come....why do atheists want to take that away from them? Its not like you have something better to offer, now is it?

Actually, we do have something better to offer. We can offer a shot at an authentic existence.

And we wouldn't be taking anything from you. It would be a gift.

To the believer, the secular humanist says rise from your knees, cease groveling and calling yourself an unworthy worm, shed magical thinking, and stand up proudly like the bipedal ape you were born to be.

Shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious belief, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all.

That may be terrifying to the person who has never tried it, but if you're still young and adaptable enough, the existential crisis will pass, and a new and enabling sense of self and ones place in the scheme of things will emerge.

Face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Religious belief is infantilizing. It maintains one in a state of submission, dependency, and magical thinking. It maintains a childish sense of right and wrong, which is basically about obtaining rewards and avoiding punishment at the hand of a judgmental overseer. You can't fully mature if the baby sitter never leaves, or if the cop is always in the rear view mirror.

A theist with such beliefs can never know the ineffable joy of doing good for goodness sake, with no expectation that anyone will ever know what good you did or reward you for it. He's always looking to an authority figure for approval.

When I pull over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it, I know that nobody will ever know or care except me. There was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take responsibility for that creature's well-being, so I do.

That's as close to a godlike experience as you can get. It's not the same if one believes that a cosmic eye in the sky is always watching, judging, tracking who is naughty or nice, and tallying reward and punishment.

So, it's worth making the effort to learn to face reality without such religious beliefs. Only then can you proceed to maturity, autonomy, authenticity, and self-actualization.

Please tell me what hope atheism can give anyone?

I just did - the hope for an authentic existence.

RBCs does not improve oxygen carrying capabilities. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

Red blood cells contain hemoglobin, which binds oxygen in the pulmonary capillaries and releases it to the peripheral tissues. More RBCs means more oxygen carrying capacity. When we moved from sea level to a mile high community, my hematocrit, which is the fraction of a centrifuged column of blood that is the red cells under the yellowish serum above it, rose about 10% to compensate for the lower oxygen content of the ambient air.

Why do you suppose that that happened if not to restore the oxygen carrying capacity of my blood? More red cell mass per cc of blood at a lower degree of saturation can restore the oxygen content of that blood to sea level status.

477609-c2ce1345449f0d590a81c434ad321447.jpg
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Myself and several others have made the same observations about your debate style.
When multiple people tell you the same thing, you may want to consider that perhaps the error is occurring on your end. ;)
I am one of several others. I asked @nPeace who is more likely to be speaking a new language. Maybe he thought the question was a rhetorical one. It isn't.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm willing to learn, you know. I am also wiling to be corrected.
So if I make a statement that I believe, and someone can show me differently, with solid provable facts, I will accept.
So if there is anyone that can tell me, I am all ears.
Remember this is a discussion forum, so one argument can be refuted by another, if the factual information is produced.
For now, I am only stating what I believe to be the case, but I am open to any facts to the contrary.
I will research it further, as you suggested..

Did I miss something, or did you just ignore my question, seeking to discover what your work is?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
They are about some things, yes. Other things, they are mum about. I won't list all those here.
Hello again....
You see? There are few or no records of JW deaths caused by BT refusal, other than as declared by themselves.

Blood transfusion have always been about saving lives, not eating them!
1 Samuel 2:12-15
Sadly, so many thousands have died because of them. Do I really have to show how and why? This is the internet age when this stuff is there for the researching.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hello again....
You see? There are few or no records of JW deaths caused by BT refusal, other than as declared by themselves.


Sadly, so many thousands have died because of them. Do I really have to show how and why? This is the internet age when this stuff is there for the researching.
Most of them died because of mistakes like giving someone tainted blood. In most instances, it wasn't the blood that killed it was something in the blood or it was about sloppy work like giving someone the wrong type.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@oldbadger it isn't about how many people die. It can be about just one person dying because she had been told that the order of Jehovah is that she must not have it. Do you understand? Why not ask the JWs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God says what they say God says?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!


I really don't understand half of what you wrote. Also, I don't care what your agenda is. However, when you link to a rag paper, I will point it out.


I thought this comment of yours to be particularly interesting...


Well, they really aren't, are they? Just because the general subject is the same doesn't mean the "reports are repeated".

But, hey, that's just my opinion.




Oh wait. It seems to be the consensus of Brit readers.

https://www.quora.com/How-credible-is-the-Daily-Mail
Not really. It was initially established to "give the middle classes something to hate", and it's carried on with that basic philosophy. It likes to spread fear and worry, because that sells papers.


https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Daily-Mail-conservative-and-is-it-reliable
Is the Daily Mail conservative, and is it reliable?
Answer Wiki
Consensus is that The Daily Mail:


  • is xenophobic, neo-fascist, misogynistic, anti-scientific and racist.
  • Is unreliable to the point it can be used as a reverse fact check - if it says something happened, it probably didn’t.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-editorial-viewpoint-of-Englands-Daily-Mail-newspaper
The editorial viewpoint is "Right wing, fearmongering". It's target audience are those who are on the right of the political spectrum and want their fears and prejudices confirmed and aren't too worried about factual accuracy.

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source


Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’

Which are the Best and Worst Newspapers in the UK?
UK popular newspapers are infamous for their daft stories, political bias, poor fact-checking and skewed reporting, combined with a concentration on celebrities and entertainment-value news. By comparing all newspapers to common criteria, including academic judgements of their quality and the number of complaints raised against them, it is possible to score each one of them. ...
The Best:
4
The Guardian,​


What a lot of junk written there.
Why on earth didn't you just check out the FACTS??!!

This the first article I found.............................

Britain's contaminated blood scandal: 'I need them to ... - The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/.../contaminated-blood-scandal-thousands-haemophiliacs-...

3 Mar 2018 - A 1975 World In Action TV report exposed the fact that the ... who was infected by a transfusion of British blood after the birth of her daughter in ...




Go on....... GET READING!
And now you cannot knock the source......... that was so easy.

See ya....
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I really don't understand half of what you wrote. Also, I don't care what your agenda is. However, when you link to a rag paper, I will point it out.

Oh wait. It seems to be the consensus of Brit readers.

https://www.quora.com/How-credible-is-the-Daily-Mail
Not really. It was initially established to "give the middle classes something to hate", and it's carried on with that basic philosophy. It likes to spread fear and worry, because that sells papers.


https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Daily-Mail-conservative-and-is-it-reliable
Is the Daily Mail conservative, and is it reliable?
Answer Wiki
Consensus is that The Daily Mail:


  • is xenophobic, neo-fascist, misogynistic, anti-scientific and racist.
  • Is unreliable to the point it can be used as a reverse fact check - if it says something happened, it probably didn’t.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-editorial-viewpoint-of-Englands-Daily-Mail-newspaper
The editorial viewpoint is "Right wing, fearmongering". It's target audience are those who are on the right of the political spectrum and want their fears and prejudices confirmed and aren't too worried about factual accuracy.

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source


Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’

Which are the Best and Worst Newspapers in the UK?
UK popular newspapers are infamous for their daft stories, political bias, poor fact-checking and skewed reporting, combined with a concentration on celebrities and entertainment-value news. By comparing all newspapers to common criteria, including academic judgements of their quality and the number of complaints raised against them, it is possible to score each one of them. ...
The Best:
4
The Guardian,


At last, after all that drivvle, you have chosen a newspaper.
I am beginning to understand why you like the Daily Mail. If, after reading my post, you concluded that I chose a newspaper, then, clearly your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

Regarding distaste for the Daily Mail, I clearly stated: It seems to be the consensus of Brit readers.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What a lot of junk written there.
Why on earth didn't you just check out the FACTS??!!

This the first article I found.............................

Britain's contaminated blood scandal: 'I need them to ... - The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/.../contaminated-blood-scandal-thousands-haemophiliacs-...

3 Mar 2018 - A 1975 World In Action TV report exposed the fact that the ... who was infected by a transfusion of British blood after the birth of her daughter in ...




Go on....... GET READING!
And now you cannot knock the source......... that was so easy.

See ya....
Someone, somewhere, quoted from an article in the Daily Mail. I responded that the Daily Mail was a rag that was not to be trusted. Subsequently, I found that Brits share my distaste for the Daily Mail.

Frankly, I don't care what the story is about. I also don't care if the Daily Mail got one story right one time. It's a rag. Anyone who quotes from it should know that.



In any case, the real problem seems to be more with your politicians than with science.

Britain's contaminated blood scandal: ‘I need them to admit they killed our son’
In 1984, the US Food and Drug Administration banned medical use of blood from high-risk groups including prisoners. But the British Department of Health continued to import blood from US prisons,​
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
No, it isn't, Certainly not the Cambrian Explosion!

From the stalk-eyed fly, to the platypus, to the giant sequoia....from bearing young oviparously to viviparously, to ovoviviparously....from symbiosis between unrelated organisms, to their gps-location instincts...

Too much diversity exists, for evolution to reasonably explain and account for. No undirected, mindless force could greatly mutate these organisms, and still maintain the balance in nature that exists.

It's fantasy!
Pretend that I know nothing of evolution but have extensive knowledge of biology. Please explain to me the things you just asserted. With supporting evidence.

Thanks.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@oldbadger it isn't about how many people die. It can be about just one person dying because she had been told that the order of Jehovah is that she must not have it. Do you understand? Why not ask the JWs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God says what they say God says?

Because it is no longer anything to do with you, nor ever was with me, Savage.

I wouldn't ask rock climbers why they do iot, but they surely do die at it.
I wouldn't rant in self righteous indignation at yachtsmen for taking their kids on boats, but they do, and kids do die....... (I can think of one or two that I knew).

That's why I kick against the folks who make armchair self-righteous judgement about others' beliefs, cultures, lifestyles etc....... it's just plain agenda driven aggression, mostly. Like this thread that was titled 'Stand on Evolution'....... it's what we call a 'stalking horse' here..... they start a debate with one apparent goal when in fact it's something else entirely that's wanted.
 
Top