Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Dan From Smithville]

You still don't get it. Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny science, by that I mean scientific advances or discoveries. And deciding that the Lucys of the prehistoric world were early relatives by virtue of later relatives evolving from them is absurd. Although, I must say that Lucy's earlier relative is kind of cute.
New Fossil Reveals Face of Oldest Known 'Lucy' Relative

Do you reject the theory of evolution on scientific grounds or do you deny it based on doctrine?

Do you feel you have a sound understanding of the theory and fact of evolution and the science behind it?

 

[PruePhillip]

Exactly....they face pretty severe social punishment if they deviate from JW doctrine, but then act like that threat isn't a factor in how they approach certain subjects. The question is, why? Are they ashamed or embarrassed?

Both of these, plus brain washing and fear of shunning.

 

[PruePhillip]

They were messed up in their heads, and drugs were freely available
back then, and adultery ran deep in society but hidden as best it could be.
.

Well, here's the problem.
DNA shows there was a lot more fidelity in families "back then"
and
there was the death penalty for adultery in most Western societies until the 18th Century I
recall. Certainly it wasn't as prevalent as today - our generation has to be most adulterous
generation in history. Read my profile below.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, here's the problem.
DNA shows there was a lot more fidelity in families "back then"
and
there was the death penalty for adultery in most Western societies until the 18th Century I
recall. Certainly it wasn't as prevalent as today - our generation has to be most adulterous
generation in history. Read my profile below.

Would you support the death penalty for adultery?

 

[PruePhillip]

Would you support the death penalty for adultery?

No, that's different. Just saying it didn't pay to fool around "back then."
And they weren't the hypocrites our cultures loves to portray them.
We do well to criticize some of the practices of previous generations,
but imagine if it could work both ways.
I like how Jesus put it, "every generation is wise in its own eyes."

 

[tas8831]

But what I don't get and what's the subject of this thread, is what you touched on towards the end of your post..."Yet here you are, pretending that it is all just 'conjecture.' Because that is what you have been told it is". From what I've seen, the reality is they will never admit that being a Witness has any influence at all in how they approached the material you posted (or in their decision to ignore it).

Again....why? Is being a Witness and following their doctrine something to hide?

Intriguing question - one that they seem to have a hard time digesting.

 

[tas8831]

It’s a shame the government had to get involved, and subsequently investigated and verified his ill-treatment.

Oh, you mean that political hack-job performed by a religious nut in the Bush administration. Yeah, that was the very picture of "bias."

 

[tas8831]

snip

I will start a new thread do discuss this so as to not derail this one - cool?

It is this new thread:

adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

See you there.

 

[tas8831]

Careful, your bias is showing.

I will address this in the new thread, but I do find that comment most... projective, seeing as how you rely on an essay by 2 creationists published on the CNS website which is not considered a reliable source due to its far right extremist bias:

CNS News - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate CNS News Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and numerous failed fact checks.

Let me guess - that site is 'biased', too?

And I will also add that I am duly impressed that you copy-pasted from your unreliable source as your primary means of response.

Not off to a good start, but I expected little else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

JW’s have posted a lot on science!
Science — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Mmmkay...
Here's an example of one the things they have posted "on science", which I found by clicking your link and then scrolling through the page that came up:



If Someone Says—
‘I believe in evolution’

You might reply: ‘Do you believe that God had any hand in matters, or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance? (Then proceed on the basis of what the person says.)’

Or you could say: ‘It wouldn’t be realistic to reject something that has been fully proved to be a scientific fact, would it? . . . I have here some comments of scientists that are very interesting regarding this point. (Use material on pages 121, 122, under the subheading “Is evolution really scientific?” or on pages 122, 123, under “Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? . . . ”)’

Another possibility: ‘When there is solid evidence proving something, that is what we should all believe, isn’t it? . . . I recall in my school textbooks that pictures of fossils were provided to support evolution. But since then I have read some very interesting comments by scientists concerning the fossil record. I have some of them here. (Use material on pages 123, 124, under the subheading “What view does the fossil record support?”)’

An additional suggestion: ‘Am I right in concluding that you are a person who likes to face life the way it really is? . . . I do too.’ Then perhaps add: ‘If I walk in the countryside and find that some wood and stones have been shaped into a house, it should be obvious to me that someone was there before me and built it; right? . . . But, now, would it be logical for me to conclude that flowers growing alongside the house resulted just from chance? If I feel that way I need to look closely and notice the intricate design, because I know that it is a basic truth that where there is design there must be a designer. This is what the Bible tells us at Hebrews 3:4.’

Or you might answer (an older person): ‘One of the basic ideas in evolution is that it accounts for man’s progress, his development to what he is today, isn’t that right?’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘You are an individual who has lived quite some time. Do you remember how things were when you were a child? Was there as much crime as there is now? . . . Did you always have to keep the door locked? . . . Would you say that people back then showed greater concern for their neighbors, and for older folks, than they do today? . . . So, while there has been great progress in technical fields, humans themselves seem to be losing some of the qualities that count most. Why is this?’ (2) ‘I find that these realities of life that we have both observed agree with what is written here in the Bible at Romans 5:12. . . . So, really there has been a downhill trend.’ (3) ‘But the Bible shows how that will change. (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 21:3, 4)’



So really, part of what they "post on science", is giving people strategies to question evolution by employing strawmen, misrepresenting science, engaging in quote mining,... and other such dishonest apologetic tactics.







EDIT: ow dear.... I scrolled a bit further. Here's some more of their "postings on science"

“The Most Notorious Scientific Fraud” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Piltdown man! LOL!


Even further: on the origins of the human race

Adam and Eve — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

More quote-mining and lies, making it look as if scientists believe that adam and eve are real.


What a bad joke, this is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Jose Fly , why did Jesus give his life for mankind? The answer is related to Romans 5:12 and following verses.

CD evolution relegates His sacrifice to being valueless, to trash. That's tantamount to saying my beliefs are trash.
Grief! You really can't grasp that?

Is there any doubt that I'd defend it?!

Fortunately, there's a lot of evidence that's available to support my views.

Suddenly I'm reminded of this one-liner I once heared somewhere:

"Just because you've invested a lot of time in a mistake, is no rational reason to not acknowledge the mistake".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TNo matter how often you explain that not accepting the theory of evolution, has nothing to do with being a Jehovah's Witness, he unreasonably continues on a one tracked Jehovah's Witness Vendetta.

I have never in my life met somebody who didn't accept evolution because of real scientific reasons.
Ever single evolution denier I have ever come accross, didn't accept evolution primarily because it was incompatible with his/her religious beliefs.

And in the case of @Hockeycowboy , he actually also pretty much admitted as much in this very thread. I guess you didn't read that part yet.

As for the focus on JW's, it make sense to me.
Creationism is part of the official doctrine of JW. JWs are also pretty well known for strict adherence to their doctrines AND the big effort of leadership to make sure it stays that way.

So, yeah, I don't see anything specifically wrong with saying that evolution denial by a JW is very likely directly related to JW doctrine.

@Hockeycowboy in this thread also shared a link with "science postings" by JWs. I scrolled around for a bit and one of the things I encountered concerning biology, was literally a playbook detailing the tactics / strategy that should be used be JW's in how to talk with an evolutionist about evolution.

I actually posted the excerpt earlier today in this very thread. You should have no problem finding it. It's only a couple posts above yours, on the same page.

The fact that such playbooks are published in their Watchtower, seems to be pretty consistent with the idea that as an organization they really do tell them what to believe and say about topics such as evolution.

Even though you point out that there are Atheists who did not accept evolution

Really?

- even if, at least not on the basis of any evidence, but simply because they were taught it, some of whom rejected it, after investigation.
We have persons like Anthony Flew - Atheist for about 35 years, J. Warner Wallace - Atheist for 35 years (video), and others.

Please share evidence that these people rejected evolution while being atheist.
I quickly googled it and found no evidence of this at all.

Don't like JWs, fine. But don't lie about them.

Again I'll refer you back to the "playbook" I found on the watchtower website that was linked by @Hockeycowboy , which he posted in context of his comment that "JW does a lot of postings on science".

When the organization literally gives you a playbook on how to "trap" evolutionists (using dishonest tactics like shifting goalposts, quote mining, strawmanning, etc... btw), then it seems like Fly hasn't lied at all.

It means that it's literally part of the doctrine to be against evolution, just like he said.

All that is just a campaign - like someone going around handling out fliers
That's what the Fly is doing on RF... and his fliers are promoting a lie, or lies.

Then why does the watchtower website shared by @Hockeycowboy , supposedly to "prove" how JWs do a lot of postings on "science" contain a playbook instructing JW followers on how to use dishonest and fallacious tactics when talking about evolution?

 

[tas8831]

There was no "Gosh, there aren't any transitional fossils so we have to make something up to explain it away" as so many creationists dishonestly portray it.

Now, here's the question for you....are you willing and able to consider this information and adjust your position and talking points accordingly?

"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact (Eldredge 1971; Eldredge and Gould 1974, p. 307)."
- Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered Stephen Jay Gould; Niles Eldredge Paleobiology, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Spring, 1977), pp. 115-151.​

I am not certain, of course, but I would bet that the above quote will not be seen in any creationist writings.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have never in my life met somebody who didn't accept evolution because of real scientific reasons.

What? I can't even figure out what that statement means. Please explain. ("real scientific reasons?")

 

[YoursTrue]

"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact (Eldredge 1971; Eldredge and Gould 1974, p. 307)."
- Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered Stephen Jay Gould; Niles Eldredge Paleobiology, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Spring, 1977), pp. 115-151.​

I am not certain, of course, but I would bet that the above quote will not be seen in any creationist writings.

"never claimed" that gradualism "could not occur in theory" (I like that as a catch-all reason to believe in evolution perhaps) or (and now the big one) "did not occur in fact." LOL.

 

[oldbadger]

No, that's different. Just saying it didn't pay to fool around "back then."
And they weren't the hypocrites our cultures loves to portray them.

Dickens showed us otherwise

I like how Jesus put it, "every generation is wise in its own eyes."

Do you have chapter and verse on that, please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the reason I put the Fly on ignore.
He does not take your answer, but persistently, and most annoyingly "puts words in your mouth" - insisting that your answer is not what you gave, but what he believes, and wants you to say.

No matter how often you explain that not accepting the theory of evolution, has nothing to do with being a Jehovah's Witness, he unreasonably continues on a one tracked Jehovah's Witness Vendetta.

Even though you point out that there are Atheists who did not accept evolution - even if, at least not on the basis of any evidence, but simply because they were taught it, some of whom rejected it, after investigation.
We have persons like Anthony Flew - Atheist for about 35 years, J. Warner Wallace - Atheist for 35 years (video), and others.

I know persons who don't affiliate themselves with any religion, and never did, who don't believe in evolution, purely on reason.
It's like someone standing outside two doors, and not entering until they know what's inside, if what's inside is good, and right, before making a thorough investigation before entering.

The Fly seems to want, imo, smear Jehovah's Witnesses as people who don't think, but just follow, and I consider his tactics as a smear campaign of lies.
Don't like JWs, fine. But don't lie about them.
Until the Fly stops his smear campaign of lies, and accept what he is told by a JW, he can remain on my ignore list.
It is pointless debating someone who does not listen to you, but instead promotes his own lies. All that is just a campaign - like someone going around handling out fliers

That's what the Fly is doing on RF... and his fliers are promoting a lie, or lies.

What makes you think that Anthony Flew was on your side? I have never seen anything that even hinted that Flew ever stopped accepting the fact of evolution. He may have advocated for an intelligence behind evolution but he still clearly accepted a common ancestor to life.

 

[sooda]

Both of these, plus brain washing and fear of shunning.

What a shame. Science and education are important and not a threat to faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"never claimed" that gradualism "could not occur in theory" (I like that as a catch-all reason to believe in evolution perhaps) or (and now the big one) "did not occur in fact." LOL.

Now you are trying to dishonestly twist what was said.

What Gould found was that there are times of very rapid evolution. Gradualism used to be thought to be the way that life evolved. They found that gradualism, which can be observed, was not the only way that life evolved.

Why does reality bother you so much that it causes you to break the Ninth Commandment?

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you are trying to dishonestly twist what was said.

What Gould found was that there are times of very rapid evolution.QUOTE]
No, you're the one twisting. I simply recognized what he was saying. And very rapid evolution...lol... I can only imagine. Yes, very rapid.