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

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m sure with your understanding, there’d be tons.

Do you think you got your understanding from the Bible’s Author, Jehovah?

If evolution were demonstrated so completely that there was only an infinitesimal, non-zero chance that it would ever be shown wrong, would you stop believing in God? Would you leave your church?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m sure with your understanding, there’d be tons.

Do you think you got your understanding from the Bible’s Author, Jehovah?

How do you know the understanding of the Bible of those that point out the errors and inconsistencies in the scripture. Is it based on your personal, faith-based view that these do not exist, so you are just assuming that everyone that says otherwise is wrong by default?

If it were demonstrated to you that the Bible was written by men in a way that you could find no doubt in that demonstration, including all the recognized flaws, would you stop using the Bible?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m sure with your understanding, there’d be tons.

Do you think you got your understanding from the Bible’s Author, Jehovah?

Since you believe that you have "The Truth" and all the rest of us are under the yoke of Satan and will be destroyed, while you are bound for divine reward, why do you care what comes out of science or what others say about it or their own beliefs? I don't get that. If you are all set and comfortable and special, what difference does it matter what anyone else says or does? If you think science is making a mockery of your religion, why does that matter to you if you are so strong in your faith and "The Truth". This all seems like a defensive position where the defense should already exist in the strength of your faith and full knowledge of your truth.

Can you explain all that?

Edit: It is not just a question to you, but to all fundamentalists. For a group of people that believe they are saved and special in the eyes of God, you all sure act like anybody and their uncle can just come along and snatch it away without any effort.

Do you get special recognition in your church for publicly denouncing science and going head to head with atheists, other Christians and non-Christians?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, Not playing this game. I supported my claim. You never supported your claim that Flew denied reality in this matter. Your turn to support your claims for once with a valid source.

I was hoping to see some evidence, but I should have realized that none was going to be provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol.
1) Purposeful interactive systems. Like between flora and fauna (carbon dioxide, and oxygen reciprocation.)

I have been reading through this list again, and, unless this is all doctrine speaking, I would love to see the empirical evidence you have to demonstrate your claims of design here. Can you explain what purposeful interactive systems are and show the purpose and how that was determined?

Even down to the clownfish / anemone symbiosis. (Evolution explains that developed, how exactly?)

Since you are claiming design is empirical, I do not have to rehash evolution and the evidence supporting it, for you to support your claims.

It is design.

According to you this is supported by the evidence that you have studied, carefully reviewed, side by side, with the theory and evidence of evolution, and come to this conclusion. Can you summarize it for us, but not leaving out too much detail, so that all the rest of us can review the empirical evidence you have used to make this determination?

2) The Cambrian Explosion.

What about it?

Separate creative events. (Where are the obvious precursors? Surely they’re there...right?)

What separate creative events? You do realize that would be abiogenesis and not evolution. Would you please provide the evidence of the different creative events and how they were determined to exist and be separate?

The mammalian Explosion, 66 mya, is similar.

As I understand both, they are similar, but what does this have to do with intelligent design and how is it unexplained by evolution? What is your point here?

3) The sheer diversity of organic body plans. (Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)

Where is the empirical data? I see a claim and the actions of a condescending, somewhat unjustly arrogant, attitude, but no empirical data. This looks like God of the Gaps. What evidence are you using to derive these claims. I mean, that was what you said you had. Are you sure that evolution couldn't do it, and science is limited by a lack of evidence due to the constraints of fossilization, so you are substituting "God did it" by default? I thought you had evidence and didn't need to fall on the fallacious default argument?

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

I really need to see your evidence supporting irreducible complexity, because every place I look to in the scientific literature and even the popular press, says that irreducible complexity has been refuted. Even Behe had to admit that it could not be demonstrated in the lab, so if it has been refuted and cannot be demonstrated, where is the empirical evidence you are using coming from? I was really surprised that you would reference the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade, considering the work that has been done that shows neither is an example irreducible complexity. Perhaps that hasn't made it into doctrine yet.

These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms.

But the purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.

Again, I thought your response was going to be about the empirical evidence of intelligent design. Where is the evidence for "purpose" and design that leads to that implication? That is what I thought you were going to provide, but even after a couple of readings, I am just not seeing it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's actually quite telling that you can't figure out what is being meant.

I mean not accepting evolution motivated by actual scientific reasons.

Instead, the motivation is always some kind of willfull ignorance as a result of "I already believe something else", and that something else being some dogmatic religious creation story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I know you are aware of this, but it's for the readers...

Just to clarify, the "rapid" evolution in PE, is still gradual.

It's not like during the cambrian explosion a member of species X suddenly gave birth to a member of species Y. There still is a gradual build up of changes which gradually makes X evolve into Y over many many generations.


Consider running 1 mile against the wind vs running 1 mile with the wind.
With the wind will get you there sooner. But you're still going step by step. The process of running is still the same.

The wind here, is selection pressure. In times of stability, selection pressures will favour the status quo - not much change will happen. Well... no, that's not accurate / clear. The amount of changes that happens stays pretty much the same. It's just that due to selection pressures favouring stability, many to most changes will be selected against.

When the environment changes, then so do selection pressures. They now no longer favour the status quo. So new changes have more chances of being selected.

The end result of which is, a more "rapid" overall change in species and eco-systems.

But it's still the same process. It's still gradual.

PE is more about selection pressures then anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. I said I know people... personally. Do you expect to meet all eight billion people, and ask them? Happy surveying.

Your anecdotes do not impress me.
And I told you that *I* have never met such people.

If you do, feel free to invite them here so that they may share their "scientific objections" to evolution.

Admit what?

That he can't accept evolution because it's incompatible with his religious beliefs.

I can't read your mind

But you could read the thread.

"Very likely" Ah, but you see how so different that is to... "It is".

Not necessarily. "it is" denotes levels of certainty that I'm more often then not, not comfortable with anyway.
The vast majority of the time, when I say that something "is", I likely rather mean that it's just extremely likely.

Some things are so likely, that we might just as well call them facts.
Let's turn it around though... you meet a random JW. What are the chances that that person is a creationist, when ALL you know about said person is that (s)he's a JW?

I'ld say the chances are 99.99999%. And the reason I don't say 100%, is the same reason as why I use terms like "very likely".

Even after being told by a JW, that it isn't, after you repeatedly asked him, and he gave you his reason, even showing you that it is nonsense, because even before becoming a JW he did not accept it, as is the case with many non JWs?

That same person shared a link to a JW website where he said that there are "many postings on science". And in the section concerning biology, instead of actual articles concerning biology, you instead find a playbook on the tactics and strategy that a JW must use to "debate" an evolutionist. The rest of it, reads like a collection of creationist apologetic arguments. All that falls perfectly in line with the idea that creationism is official dogmatic doctrine within JW circles AND that the leadership literally asks its followes to spread creationist propaganda, and even includes playbooks on the strategy that has to be used to do so.

So excuse me, if I don't take that person's claims seriously.
The content of the JW website he himself linked to, shows the exact opposite of what he is claiming.

I would not be surprised if you found a playbook outlining what to say, and how to refute, every possible topic you can think of.
To you, reasoning on something, and presenting that reason to others, is to you, a playbook.
To me, it's arming soldiers to be efficient in offense and defense. After all, we are in a warfare - a spiritual battle against enemies of God-fearing people.

The very existance of such playbooks, prove the point being made, and expose that @Hockeycowboy is dishonest (or ignorant) when he claims otherwise.

It's kind of ironic also that it was he himself that linked to it.

This is what these Atheist did.

You claiming they did, doesn't mean they did.
You are welcome to post evidence of this, if you really think it's true.

So how reasonable is it to focus on a small group of Christians

In a thread about that group? Pretty reasonable.

, which are so small, in comparison to millions of people, who reject the theory of evolution by looking at the evidence - including reputable scientists?

Don't kid yourself.
Not a single reputable scientist thinks evolution is wrong.

ps: neither of your two dubious examples were biologists....

They accepted these, on their own accord - without being coerced - on investigating for themselves.

If that were true, there would be no need for playbooks telling them what to say when.
Go and read it. It's a script, much like scripts are given to salespeople in callcenters.

When people get to think for themselves, they aren't handed scripts on what to say when to whom.

This is your opinion.

No, it's not an opinion. The script / playbook is factually on that website and part of their teachings. I even copy pasted a portion of it in this thread. Didn't you see it?

Many people - millions - access the JW website daily, and they have a far different view to yours.
They say the information is well researched, reasonably presented, informative, and enlightening, and both refreshing and encouraging. It causes one to think (Is that what you are afraid of, hence your complaint?) - rather than gulp down the camel, like most willing Atheists do.

I didn't see any research on there. All I saw was propaganda and scripted playbooks on what JWs should say when and to whom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know. You hate to be put in a position where you are asked to support things you say, and you know you can't support it.

I know of at least 3 instances now, since your claim about Flew and the other dude, of people asking you to support the claim that these people rejected evolution on scientific grounds while being atheist.
I was one of them.

Are you planning on supporting your claim with evidence any time soon, or.......?

Flew never suggested, hinted, nor said he believed in the theory of evolution. I have the information.

We are asking you to share that information. You just claiming it and claiming to have information, doesn't do anything to support your claim. You don't support claims by piling on more claims.

You can find it if you want

I tried to find it and I didn't, as I've told you when I asked YOU to bring the evidence that YOU supposedly have which I can't find.

but I will not bother, because I don't want to continually put you in that position.

Whenever you are done making excuses and either admit to not have this evidence OR to share it if you do.....

 

[YoursTrue]

We cam see both evolution in action and the effects of evolution. The evidence for it is so strong that those that believe in creationism are in effect claiming that their God is a liar.

And you just proved that you have no clue. We see evolution constantly. What on Earth makes you think that it ever stopped?

I am likely going to stop talking about my thoughts re: evolution on this thread, taking it to the God and evolution thread. So I am going there. I have a few questions for you there. One has to do with radiometric dating. I assume you understand these things quite well, as an advocate for evolution, and since you keep telling me how much I don't know, I assume that could mean you do know, and so I hope you can explain a few details to me. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol.
1) Purposeful interactive systems. Like between flora and fauna (carbon dioxide, and oxygen reciprocation.) Even down to the clownfish / anemone symbiosis. (Evolution explains that developed, how exactly?) It is design.
[/QUOTE{]

You lose the argument when you resort to lure BS assumed terms such as "Purposeful interactive systems". You are using a circular argument. Try again.

2) The Cambrian Explosion. Separate creative events. (Where are the obvious precursors? Surely they’re there...right?) The mammalian Explosion, 66 mya, is similar.

There is no requirement for "obvious" precursors , we only need precursors and we have those. This is another fail.

3) The sheer diversity of organic body plans. (Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)[/]

What are you talking about? Yes, the theory of evolution has "creative power". Your inability to understand this does not mean that it exists.

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

You are joking I assume. Behe's claims have been refuted. He only had a complicated argument from ignorance and even though that is a logical fallacy his premises have themselves been refuted as well.

These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms.

But the purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.

But none of those were obstacles and you provided no evidence. All that was was a Gish Gallop. A big part of the problem is that you do not know what evidence is in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m sure with your understanding, there’d be tons.

Do you think you got your understanding from the Bible’s Author, Jehovah?

Your mythical beliefs and errant agenda guarantee that your understanding of the Bible is far inferior to mine. For example you do not even have a clue as to who wrote that mess. No wonder you constantly refute yourself.

 

[tas8831]

snip

Hey dude - waiting for you over here:

adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

 

[Cooky]

Specifically, I'm wondering why Jehovah's Witnesses seem so hesitant to even consider, let alone talk about, how being a JW plays a role in shaping their views on science.

Over the last couple of years I've discussed and debated various science-related issues with JWs (mostly evolutionary biology), and for the most part it goes like any other stereotypical interaction with creationists. However, as soon as I even mention the possibility that maybe being a JW, and facing all the social and emotional consequences that would ensue should they waver from JW doctrine on the subject, plays a role in how they view the science (the data, analyses, and conclusions), the conversation usually shuts down very quickly. In one case here at RF, the JW immediately, and rather angrily, put me on ignore.

Why is that? Many creationists from other denominations I've discussed this with don't seem to have a problem acknowledging how their belief in scripture influences their views on science. In fact, they usually seem quite proud of it.

But not Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems to me as soon as someone says something like "Well of course you reject that, you're a Jehovah's Witness...you have to", the JWs tend to get quite upset. It's almost like they're ashamed of their own religion's doctrine or something.

Any thoughts on why that might be?

Why that might be..? I don't know! It's true though -last time the JW's came to my house and knocked on my door, they asked a few questions, I gave a few answers, and they slammed the door in my face..!

...Go figure.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why that might be..? I don't know! It's true though -last time the JW's came to my house and knocked on my door, they asked a few questions, I gave a few answers, and they slammed the door in my face..!

...Go figure.

I've had them ask "Can we just go and leave you with our literature?" Pretty satisfying IMO.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ahem.... @Hockeycowboy you seem to have bailed on our discussion. Is there a reason for that, or can we pick up where you left it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If it were demonstrated to you that the Bible was written by men in a way that you could find no doubt in that demonstration, including all the recognized flaws, would you stop using the Bible?

Go for it!

But that would require another thread.

If you do, no Gish. One or two at a time.
I am curious...why are you Methodist? What is Jesus, to you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go for it!

But that would require another thread.

If you do, no Gish. One or two at a time.
I am curious...why are you Methodist? What is Jesus, to you?

I asked a question. One I see you are avoiding. I am not sure how my religion is relevant, there is no doctrine in my church that commands me to deny science and pretend I did it on my expertise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've had them ask "Can we just go and leave you with our literature?" Pretty satisfying IMO.

Did you get the comic book? That's my favorite.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go for it!

But that would require another thread.

If you do, no Gish. One or two at a time.
I am curious...why are you Methodist? What is Jesus, to you?

So would you stop using the Bible? It isn't a complex question? I wouldn't turn away from the Bible, but I feel pretty comfortable about my faith. I suppose people of weaker faith need crutches. Real or imagined.