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

[nPeace]

Now you are lying.

I am?
You can't prove that, just as you can't prove God is not being patient with you us.
I am being so honest as to pass any lie-detector test.
You supported nothing. You posted a link with no information that would say yeah or nay to your claim.
It mentioned nothing about Flew's view on evolution or abiogenesis.
Isn't that the reason you can't even point to one sentence?
You were quick to point to one here, when asked. Why don't you do the same here?
Simple. You can't find any.

For one to say they did A, when they did not, is lying.
There. Proof I am not lying.

You made a bogus claim. It was challenged. Rather than supporting it properly you tried to shift the burden of proof and you lied when you did that.

But then we both know that you can't support your bogus claims. This is a game that you play far too often.

I responded with... "I have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.
Maybe you can provide that information."

To my mind, this has nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof... at least that was not my intention. It was, as far as I honestly know, an innocent response.
All you had to do, was provide the information.
After all this long talk, I still have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.

Even if he did, I still wouldn't know. Why? Because no one is able to show me. They just state it, as though I am supposed to say, 'Oh, okay.'

EDIT: From the very start I told you that Flew did not have a problem with evolution. His problem was with abiogenesis. The article that I linked supported that claim. So it was a lie to say that I did not support my claim.

Meanwhile you attacked Flew by claiming that he denied evolution (aka reality). You were requested to support that claim. You did not do so.

I take it then, you must be saying that the author of this article must be "dead wrong".
Antony Flew, 87, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”

If that is the case, should you not provide information to show otherwise? I would think that reasonable.
I don't see how someone can believe in the "fact of evolution", and at the same time be skeptical of it, due to what he considers inconsistencies with the theory.
Can you.

Is the NYT mistaken?
A quote from the page you linked...
The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

I told you it seems I can't read. Asking for help on these forums... especially from certain experts, one may as well go in the fields and pull on a mule's tail.

If you have anything to support your claim, now would be the ideal time to present it.

 

[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 haven't once challenged your belief in God and acceptance of Christ. I am OK that you have a belief. Even that it is different than mine. I accept that you are a Christian, because you say so.

But you JW's like to turn to what can only be described as persecution of other Christians, even when that has nothing to do with the topics in discussion. Deeje turned to it almost immediately when I first made contact with her regarding vaccination. How that has anything to do with my Christianity, I will never know. At best, it might possibly go to an interpretation of scripture, but I know of no scripture that outlaws vaccinations. Neither do I know one that outlaws empirical science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am?
You can't prove that, just as you can't prove God is not being patient with you us.
I am being so honest as to pass any lie-detector test.
You supported nothing. You posted a link with no information that would say yeah or nay to your claim.
It mentioned nothing about Flew's view on evolution or abiogenesis.
Isn't that the reason you can't even point to one sentence?
You were quick to point to one here, when asked. Why don't you do the same here?
Simple. You can't find any.

For one to say they did A, when they did not, is lying.
There. Proof I am not lying.


I responded with... "I have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.
Maybe you can provide that information."

To my mind, this has nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof... at least that was not my intention. It was, as far as I honestly know, an innocent response.
All you had to do, was provide the information.
After all this long talk, I still have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.

Even if he did, I still wouldn't know. Why? Because no one is able to showed me. They just state it, as though I am supposed to say, 'Oh, okay.'


I take it then, you must be saying that the author of this article must be "dead wrong".
Antony Flew, 87, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”

If that is the case, should you not provide information to show otherwise? I would think that reasonable.
I don't see how someone can believe in the "fact of evolution", and at the same time be skeptical of it, due to what he considers inconsistencies with the theory.
Can you.

Is the NYT mistaken?
A quote from the page you linked...
The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

I told you it seems I can't read. Asking for help on these forums... especially from certain experts, one may as well go in the fields and pull on a mule's tail.

If you have anything to support your claim, now would be the ideal time to present it.

Does anyone else have trouble reading posts like this? All the font changes, color and bolding is very distracting and difficult to read.

I wonder, is it done on purpose just to make it confusing and difficult?

This example is actually light compared to many I have seen, but the changes in text are still distracting.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

I got a couple of pamphlets. I do however pick up any and all Chick Tracts I come across. Love those things!

 

[nPeace]

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.



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



But you could read the thread.



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".



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.





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.




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



In a thread about that group? Pretty reasonable.



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

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





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.




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?



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.

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts. [Views about human evolution among atheists - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics]

In a supposedly “post-truth” era, we need to be ever mindful of threats to scientific or evidence-based ways of thinking about the world. And one of the ongoing and continual threats to a scientific worldview is “science denial”, the rejection of core accepted scientific paradigms like evolution … right?

Many see the rejection of evolutionary science as a marker of religiosity or hard-line conservativism. There is a widespread assumption that religious people will find it hard to reconcile evolutionary science, and by extension science as a whole, with their religious beliefs. However, our new research turns some of this thinking on its head.

That is all I have to say on that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am?
You can't prove that, just as you can't prove God is not being patient with you us.
I am being so honest as to pass any lie-detector test.
You supported nothing. You posted a link with no information that would say yeah or nay to your claim.
It mentioned nothing about Flew's view on evolution or abiogenesis.
Isn't that the reason you can't even point to one sentence?
You were quick to point to one here, when asked. Why don't you do the same here?
Simple. You can't find any.

For one to say they did A, when they did not, is lying.
There. Proof I am not lying.

Logic is obviously missing from your toolbox.

I responded with... "I have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.
Maybe you can provide that information."

To my mind, this has nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof... at least that was not my intention. It was, as far as I honestly know, an innocent response.
All you had to do, was provide the information.
After all this long talk, I still have never seen anything that even suggested that Flew accepted the so-called 'fact' of evolution.

Even if he did, I still wouldn't know. Why? Because no one is able to show me. They just state it, as though I am supposed to say, 'Oh, okay.'


I take it then, you must be saying that the author of this article must be "dead wrong".
Antony Flew, 87, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”

If that is the case, should you not provide information to show otherwise? I would think that reasonable.
I don't see how someone can believe in the "fact of evolution", and at the same time be skeptical of it, due to what he considers inconsistencies with the theory.
Can you.

Is the NYT mistaken?
A quote from the page you linked...
The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

I told you it seems I can't read. Asking for help on these forums... especially from certain experts, one may as well go in the fields and pull on a mule's tail.

If you have anything to support your claim, now would be the ideal time to present it.

Your problem is that you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. If you understood what Flew's objections were you would see that they were to abiogenesis, not evolution. He has a problem with the origin of DNA. This is why you need to find where he opposed evolution and not abiogenesis.

I supported my claims, you did not. This is why what you said was a lie. You may not have been able to understand that you lied, but when you state a false claim as if it were true that is lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts. [Views about human evolution among atheists - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics]

In a supposedly “post-truth” era, we need to be ever mindful of threats to scientific or evidence-based ways of thinking about the world. And one of the ongoing and continual threats to a scientific worldview is “science denial”, the rejection of core accepted scientific paradigms like evolution … right?

Many see the rejection of evolutionary science as a marker of religiosity or hard-line conservativism. There is a widespread assumption that religious people will find it hard to reconcile evolutionary science, and by extension science as a whole, with their religious beliefs. However, our new research turns some of this thinking on its head.

That is all I have to say on that.

The problem is that as a YEC, or at the very least a believer in the Flood myth as well as creationism is that you eventually force yourself to reject the vast majority of science.

 

[nPeace]

Logic is obviously missing from your toolbox.



Your problem is that you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. If you understood what Flew's objections were you would see that they were to abiogenesis, not evolution. He has a problem with the origin of DNA. This is why you need to find where he opposed evolution and not abiogenesis.

I supported my claims, you did not. This is why what you said was a lie. You may not have been able to understand that you lied, but when you state a false claim as if it were true that is lying.

Ignoring the personal attack...
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views.

@Subduction Zone So Abiogenesis is suddenly evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignoring the personal attack...
In 2004, however, he announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views.

Yes, at best your article was mistaken on several levels.

First off the "Darwinian account" does not even deal with DNA. That was not discovered until long after Darwin's time. If Flew used that terminology then he displayed his own ignorance that harms his case. The article that I provided was clearer. Perhaps if you were not so rude in your ignorance and had asked politely and properly I would have shown you the quote that you either missed or did not understand. Here it is:

" It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism. "

That makes his doubts about abiogenesis, not evolution.

And by the way when you demonstrate complete ineptness when you try to make a logical argument, commenting on that is not a personal attack. Claiming that someone did not support his claims when he did is a personal attack.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I got a couple of pamphlets. I do however pick up any and all Chick Tracts I come across. Love those things!

Having looked into this, it is possible I am familiar with them, but I do not know for certain and can recall no examples. I do recall comic books that were circulated in Sunday school or given away at church. The Cross and the Switchblade was one. Another was Tom Landry and the Dallas Cowboys. There were several others. I wish I still had them.

One of my favorites was given out by some visitors to the door in late 1990's or early 2000's. It depicted the Genesis flood, but included some unusual features that I did not readily recognize at first. One panel showed the ark in the rising water, with rain coming down and people and animals stuggling to reach higher ground. There was an animal in the water that I noticed. At first I just assumed it was a crocodilian of some sort, but upon closer inspection it was not. It took me a bit, but for the life of me, I could not see what it was. Then it struck me like an epiphany. It was the upper portion of the head of T. rex. After realizing that, I took a closer look at some of the other desperate animals depicted in that panel and others. There were mammoths. It was hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, at best your article was mistaken on several levels.

First off the "Darwinian account" does not even deal with DNA. That was not discovered until long after Darwin's time. If Flew used that terminology then he displayed his own ignorance that harms his case. The article that I provided was clearer. Perhaps if you were not so rude in your ignorance and had asked politely and properly I would have shown you the quote that you either missed or did not understand. Here it is:

" It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism. "

That makes his doubts about abiogenesis, not evolution.

And by the way when you demonstrate complete ineptness when you try to make a logical argument, commenting on that is not a personal attack. Claiming that someone did not support his claims when he did is a personal attack.

He always posts with bold, colorful text of varying font that makes it so difficult to read. I assume it is done on purpose, since, after struggling through his text, it is clear he has nothing useful to report.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, at best your article was mistaken on several levels.

First off the "Darwinian account" does not even deal with DNA. That was not discovered until long after Darwin's time. If Flew used that terminology then he displayed his own ignorance that harms his case. The article that I provided was clearer. Perhaps if you were not so rude in your ignorance and had asked politely and properly I would have shown you the quote that you either missed or did not understand. Here it is:

" It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism. "

That makes his doubts about abiogenesis, not evolution.

And by the way when you demonstrate complete ineptness when you try to make a logical argument, commenting on that is not a personal attack. Claiming that someone did not support his claims when he did is a personal attack.

I don't think mentioning that logic is missing from his toolbox is a personal attack. It just points out that he does not use logic in his posts. Creationists always like to twist every observation into a personal attack on them. However, they are completely fine with personal attacks they make on others. It must be nice to be able to operate in two different directions at the same time. Most would consider it hypocrisy. I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He always posts with bold, colorful text of varying font that makes it so difficult to read. I assume it is done on purpose, since, after struggling through his text, it is clear he has nothing useful to report.

Yes, the abuse of "Green ink" only hurts his argument:

Green ink - RationalWiki

 

[FooYang]

And by the way when you demonstrate complete ineptness when you try to make a logical argument, commenting on that is not a personal attack. Claiming that someone did not support his claims when he did is a personal attack.

Woah this is really amazing

 

[FooYang]

I supported my claims, you did not. This is why what you said was a lie. You may not have been able to understand that you lied, but when you state a false claim as if it were true that is lying.

This comment made my day

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts. [Views about human evolution among atheists - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics]

In a supposedly “post-truth” era, we need to be ever mindful of threats to scientific or evidence-based ways of thinking about the world. And one of the ongoing and continual threats to a scientific worldview is “science denial”, the rejection of core accepted scientific paradigms like evolution … right?

Many see the rejection of evolutionary science as a marker of religiosity or hard-line conservativism. There is a widespread assumption that religious people will find it hard to reconcile evolutionary science, and by extension science as a whole, with their religious beliefs. However, our new research turns some of this thinking on its head.

That is all I have to say on that.

"atheists" who "believe" that humans evolved due to God's design.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

[nPeace]

View attachment 32481


"atheists" who "believe" that humans evolved due to God's design.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

I didn't write that. Dude. Why did you pick that out to focus on?
Oh, forgive me. I forgot we talk to ourselves at times. Were you talking to yourself?

Oh. I see. just a general observation.
<double take> What?

 

[Jose Fly]

Having looked into this, it is possible I am familiar with them, but I do not know for certain and can recall no examples. I do recall comic books that were circulated in Sunday school or given away at church. The Cross and the Switchblade was one. Another was Tom Landry and the Dallas Cowboys. There were several others. I wish I still had them.

I had those too! Along with those cheesy Archie Christian comics. The memories.....

One of my favorites was given out by some visitors to the door in late 1990's or early 2000's. It depicted the Genesis flood, but included some unusual features that I did not readily recognize at first. One panel showed the ark in the rising water, with rain coming down and people and animals stuggling to reach higher ground. There was an animal in the water that I noticed. At first I just assumed it was a crocodilian of some sort, but upon closer inspection it was not. It took me a bit, but for the life of me, I could not see what it was. Then it struck me like an epiphany. It was the upper portion of the head of T. rex. After realizing that, I took a closer look at some of the other desperate animals depicted in that panel and others. There were mammoths. It was hilarious.

Awesome! I'd love to see it. Wonder if it's online somewhere?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I had those too! Along with those cheesy Archie Christian comics. The memories.....


Awesome! I'd love to see it. Wonder if it's online somewhere?

I have looked online, but so far, I have not found it. It wasn't until much later after I filed it in the round file, that I lamented discarding it. I think I would frame that page and display it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have looked online, but so far, I have not found it. It wasn't until much later after I filed it in the round file, that I lamented discarding it. I think I would frame that page and display it.

Dang. Well if you ever find it, start a thread here. I'd love to see it.