• 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!

Fascinating!

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes indeed, and I have no problem with any of that. Its wonderful that doctors are willing to go out on a limb to prove their cases. That doctor was an Aussie if I remember correctly, and he was given a hard time by the orthodox system before he was able to get through the wall of objection to prove the existence of Helicobacter as the culprit in stomach ulcers. My daughter-in-laws father suffered for years and when they gave him the antibiotic to kill the bacteria in his gut, he got well for the first time in over 20 years!

Where do people get the idea that I am anti-science?
I am an anti-evolutionist.....not the same thing at all.
I don't think you're anti-science at all.
But we have very different perspectives about religion.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I don't think you're anti-science at all.
But we have very different perspectives about religion.

Were you raised with any religion Revolt? Does it have a place in the world? What is your perspective?

Do the things in nature that demonstrate exquisite design just happen by chance?

images
images
images


How do you explain the fact that no two snowflakes are the same? Who knew about these amazing designs until the invention of microscopes and cameras? What laws govern their patterns? If the law governing their formation is set, why are they not all the same?
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
How much do you think young minds are indoctrinated by the entertainment industry these days? Religion is the least of your worries. What video games are your kids playing? What are they watching on YouTube? What influences are they getting from their peers at school? What are they accessing on the internet in the wee small hours of the morning, while their parents are asleep?

A little reality check is in order here, I think.....believing in God is nothing compared to those influences.



Firstly it is not my job to convince anyone of anything. It is my job to expose what I see as one of the greatest con-jobs in the history of man. It is my job to make sure that 'adults' have both sides of the story because its the parent's job to instruct their children. No one has a right to tell parents what to teach their children unless it is against the law. Can you assure anyone that what they learn in science is fact and not fantasy? Beliefs exist on both sides of this issue, so can you identify scientific fact from fiction yourself? Or do you just swallow everything they tell you?

It has never been on the agenda of JW's to have religion taught in school, ever. We teach our own children at home and at our Christian meetings, so don't put the blame for that on us. We don't agree with Christendom's teachings anyway. There was no 6 literal days of creation....and the earth, like the universe, is very ancient....that is all in Genesis.

The "dumbing down of America" is very evident in so many ways....none more so than in the blind acceptance of a scientific theory that has no actual foundation in fact. Kids need exposure to all manner of beliefs and with the right guidance, can sift the facts from the fantasy....they are smarter than we give them credit for. Adults not so much it seems.



Exposing our children to all of the story allows them to make up their own minds. No one is born a JW....it is our personal choice when we come of age to choose it. Some choose not to, as is their right. When you really examine the "evidence" you realize how much of what is accepted as fact, is nothing of the sort.

"Believing" that life 'poofed' itself into existence one day for no apparent reason, and then had the ability to morph itself into all the lifeforms we see both past and present on this earth, is not based on facts, but on assumptions......Identify the real fantasy. It takes as much 'faith' to believe what cannot be verified.



I agree...that is why we don't teach those things. We all have a propensity to do wrong...some more than others....it helps to know why we have that handicap and how to deal with it. Obeying God's laws is just common sense....the laws of the land were all based on them, in case you didn't know. But in our modern times, some of those laws have been let go. Have these changes made life any better? I can't see how. There is still a lot of hate in the world and it is passed down from parent to child...this is the education that needs modifying IMO. If we could teach our children to love half as well as we teach them to hate...we would all be better off.



Give me the definition of "truly faithful". I am happy to be in those ranks.

You can choose whatever belief system you like. Like it or not, theoretical science is a belief system. They have no "objective evidence" and "falsifiable" is just a word used to prop up the fact that they can prove nothing about macro-evolution. They can't even prove that it ever happened.

God is not falsifiable.....you cannot prove that he doesn't exist by any existing method of testing.


Your entire religious culture(JW) only wants to distance themselves from society by proclaiming citizenship to God's holy kingdom. You do not worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit. You refuse blood transfusions, because the Bible tells you so. It is ironic that your entire belief system is based on a foreign man-made, man-edited, man-contracted, man-compiled, and man-conceived book of superstitions and myths, designed to excite the imagination in children, and control the minds of peasants. Especially, in a climate where individualism and critical thinking were frowned upon. Is this the mindset you want to force onto your own children? It may not be your job to convince rational thinkers that your delusions are true, but it seems to be your job to convince your children of such. Of course, they are not going to ask you for evidence, are they? They can't pick their parents, can they? They also have nothing to compare your dogmatic biased rhetoric to, do they? They are the perfect captive audience.

Is it a con job that science uses repeatable, falsifiable, and consistent facts to explain how Gravity works? Is it a con job that science uses repeatable, falsifiable, and consistent facts, to explain the Theory of Evolution? What about the mountain of evidence, facts and data, that science uses to explain the Germ Theory, the Tectonic Plate Theory, the Big Bang Theory, the Numbers Theory, and the Quantum and General Relativity Theories? Maybe you can posit just ONE fact, law, or Theory, that science can use to explain or verify any religious dogma? Even a meta-physical fact, law, or Theory will do. I didn't think so. Just another religious cultist hiding behind an impossible belief, only because it is unfalsifiable like the "flying tea pot" in space. The con job is believers shifting their burden of proof onto the rational thinkers, or proclaiming that they are right because you can't prove that they are wrong.

Porn, the internet, peer group pressure and the entertainment industries, are all real entities that exist in our reality. The soul, sin, spirits, the Devil, God(s), everlasting life, and heaven and hell, are imaginary entities, and don't exist in our reality. We can easily address real things, but not so much the imaginary things. I prefer to teach my children how to prioritize between what is imaginary, and what is real. I prefer to teach my children by example, rather than by indoctrination. I prefer to foster, encourage, and nurture my child's own unique individuality, rather than suppress it in a climate of religious zealots. Finally, I prefer to foster, encourage, and nurture my child's ability to critical think and to self examine his/her reality, as it were. I want my children to reach further than me, learn more than me, love life more than me, live longer than me, and to treat others as they would want themselves treated.

My definition of the "truly faithful" are the "blind and the gullible". Your understanding and characterization of Evolution is truly sad, immature, and ignorant. I would suggest that you understand something first before you criticise it. Your top-down logic only exposes your blind faith and you lack the ability to self-examine. Do you really think that any religious fanatic will present both sides of the story impartially? How can you do that, when your own understanding of science is so weak? If you did compare the facts supporting scientific explanations, with the zero facts supporting religious explanations, no one could justify their beliefs based on the evidence. That is why the definition of "Faith" is belief in the absence of evidence. Give me an example of any scientific Theory we should not accept and why?

Therefore, your beliefs have nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with your beliefs. It is a lie that science has no objective evidence, or can't be falsified. Just jump out a two story window, and you will have objective evidence that Gravity exists. Find a modern rabbit buried next to a dinosaur fossil, or the same coding for a protein in one organism coding for a different protein in another organism, and you will have falsified the Theory of Evolution. There are thousands of examples of falsifiable and objective evidence that supports the tenets of science. But you are not interested in the evidence that you trip over every day of your life. Are you? Because of cognitive dissonance, belief trumps facts. And yes, not only can I prove that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Your entire religious culture(JW) only wants to distance themselves from society by proclaiming citizenship to God's holy kingdom. You do not worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit. You refuse blood transfusions, because the Bible tells you so. It is ironic that your entire belief system is based on a foreign man-made, man-edited, man-contracted, man-compiled, and man-conceived book of superstitions and myths, designed to excite the imagination in children, and control the minds of peasants. Especially, in a climate where individualism and critical thinking were frowned upon. Is this the mindset you want to force onto your own children? It may not be your job to convince rational thinkers that your delusions are true, but it seems to be your job to convince your children of such. Of course, they are not going to ask you for evidence, are they? They can't pick their parents, can they? They also have nothing to compare your dogmatic biased rhetoric to, do they? They are the perfect captive audience.

Is it a con job that science uses repeatable, falsifiable, and consistent facts to explain how Gravity works? Is it a con job that science uses repeatable, falsifiable, and consistent facts, to explain the Theory of Evolution? What about the mountain of evidence, facts and data, that science uses to explain the Germ Theory, the Tectonic Plate Theory, the Big Bang Theory, the Numbers Theory, and the Quantum and General Relativity Theories? Maybe you can posit just ONE fact, law, or Theory, that science can use to explain or verify any religious dogma? Even a meta-physical fact, law, or Theory will do. I didn't think so. Just another religious cultist hiding behind an impossible belief, only because it is unfalsifiable like the "flying tea pot" in space. The con job is believers shifting their burden of proof onto the rational thinkers, or proclaiming that they are right because you can't prove that they are wrong.

Porn, the internet, peer group pressure and the entertainment industries, are all real entities that exist in our reality. The soul, sin, spirits, the Devil, God(s), everlasting life, and heaven and hell, are imaginary entities, and don't exist in our reality. We can easily address real things, but not so much the imaginary things. I prefer to teach my children how to prioritize between what is imaginary, and what is real. I prefer to teach my children by example, rather than by indoctrination. I prefer to foster, encourage, and nurture my child's own unique individuality, rather than suppress it in a climate of religious zealots. Finally, I prefer to foster, encourage, and nurture my child's ability to critical think and to self examine his/her reality, as it were. I want my children to reach further than me, learn more than me, love life more than me, live longer than me, and to treat others as they would want themselves treated.

My definition of the "truly faithful" are the "blind and the gullible". Your understanding and characterization of Evolution is truly sad, immature, and ignorant. I would suggest that you understand something first before you criticise it. Your top-down logic only exposes your blind faith and you lack the ability to self-examine. Do you really think that any religious fanatic will present both sides of the story impartially? How can you do that, when your own understanding of science is so weak? If you did compare the facts supporting scientific explanations, with the zero facts supporting religious explanations, no one could justify their beliefs based on the evidence. That is why the definition of "Faith" is belief in the absence of evidence. Give me an example of any scientific Theory we should not accept and why?

Therefore, your beliefs have nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with your beliefs. It is a lie that science has no objective evidence, or can't be falsified. Just jump out a two story window, and you will have objective evidence that Gravity exists. Find a modern rabbit buried next to a dinosaur fossil, or the same coding for a protein in one organism coding for a different protein in another organism, and you will have falsified the Theory of Evolution. There are thousands of examples of falsifiable and objective evidence that supports the tenets of science. But you are not interested in the evidence that you trip over every day of your life. Are you? Because of cognitive dissonance, belief trumps facts. And yes, not only can I prove that God does not exist, but that God cannot exist.

Wow!...I found your post to be truly enlightened......are you sure you didn't leave any insults out of that tirade? ....nothing to add?...I mean you can tell me how you really feel.....get it off your chest....


CreativeBigHochstettersfrog-size_restricted.gif


Anyone would think I just insulted your mother.
happy0195.gif
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, FYI, Jesus told us to spread the word about his Kingdom

Unless one lives on Mars there’s virtually no one who doesn’t know about Jesus. We’ve heard the stories. Now its just shoving it down our throats and is obnoxious. Is the next step strapping us down and Jesus-boarding us? Enough already.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Good to see you. Been wondering where you were at. Maybe I have just been missing you when you are posting. Still thinking about those ribs.


Thank you for asking. I've added a deeper level of bourbon/pineapple/brown sugar taste to my racks. Hope one day you will be in my neck of the wood, where there will always be a plate for you.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Were you raised with any religion Revolt? Does it have a place in the world? What is your perspective?
None at all.
Only for others.
Religion offers no useful explanations or comforts for me.
Do the things in nature that demonstrate exquisite design just happen by chance?

images
images
images
They happen.
I don't know any more about it than what I observe.
How do you explain the fact that no two snowflakes are the same?
Crystal formation is rife with tiny random inputs.
I first ran across this studying metalurgy.
Who knew about these amazing designs until the invention of microscopes and cameras?
What laws govern their patterns? If the law governing their formation is set, why are they not all the same?
Quantum mechanics governs how atoms link up.
Add to this the effects of impurities & temperature gradients.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Your chair can be proven to exist if others can see it and sit on it. My friend's husband had lewy body dementia and had great difficulty differentiating reality from delusion. The test he was told, to ascertain what was real, was to walk over and touch the thing or person, and if he could feel them, it wasn't a delusion. He could see all manner of things and people that no one else could....he could have conversations with people and hear them talking.....it took him quite some time to be convinced that his mind was playing tricks on him. The level of reality was mind blowing.

But if the sense of touch is *also* a delusion. If *all* of your senses are simply illusions, then *nothing* is possible to know. You can't even know there is an external world. I could be a brain in a vat with all sensory data being fed to me. We could live in The Matrix, with all our senses fed to us by a massive AI.

Once you go down the road of requiring absolute proof, there is no way out of that rabbit hole.

There is another option....the Creator exists with as much actual "proof" as macro-evolution.....choose your own option for your own reasons....isn't that what we do anyway?

If macro-evolution had as little evidence in its favor as deities, then I wouldn't believe in it either.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Well, FYI, Jesus told us to spread the word about his Kingdom, because in the near future we may well see the death of the current world system of things and and all who support it, to make way for Earth's new rulership. (Daniel 2:44) That makes this a life and death proposition. Would you like no choice in the matter?

Did you reference Daniel 2:44 and actually write "in the near future"? To Daniel, it was going to be in the "near future". However, Daniel's near future has come and gone.

44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
"These kings" are long dead and gone. And still, the God of heaven has not set up a kingdom.
Do you not even understand what is written?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It is ironic that your entire belief system is based on a foreign man-made, man-edited, man-contracted, man-compiled, and man-conceived book of superstitions and myths, designed to excite the imagination in children,
The story of Noah and the ark, as written, would not excite the imagination in children. It is only when the adults present it with cutesy pictures that it becomes interesting to malleable little minds.

The Bible does not explain how a wooden boat could survive in the greatest stormy seas ever encountered, it takes adults to explain to the children "God kept them safe".

The Bible does not explain how all the animals got to the ark or how they dispersed across the globe after the Flood receded, it takes adults to explain to the children "With God all things are possible".

The Bible does not explain many things and when children ask too many questions, the parents say "Don't mock God, go to your room, pray to God for forgiveness, go to sleep and hope you wake up in the morning".
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Wow!...I found your post to be truly enlightened......are you sure you didn't leave any insults out of that tirade? ....nothing to add?...I mean you can tell me how you really feel.....get it off your chest....


CreativeBigHochstettersfrog-size_restricted.gif


Anyone would think I just insulted your mother.
happy0195.gif


I might add that all snowflakes are both different and the same. The physics that govern their formation is always the same. And, it is the randomness within the physics, that is responsible for the different designs. This process can easily be reproduce and controlled in a lab. There are no snowflakes that anyone can design, not even a God. But they are still a beautiful phenomenon of nature. Just not designed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUot7XSX8uA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/12/22/winter-wonderland-snowflakes-are-predictably-diverse-but-not-unique/#6cde47839f54

Nothing in nature is exactly the same, therefore nothing in nature can be interpreted as being designed. Unless chance is also part of the design. Unfortunately, whenever our understanding of science is weak, our imagination tends to compensate for our ignorance. Just like in the Dark Ages.

Regarding my post, my concerns were only for the innocent and the most vulnerable. Children never asked to be indoctrinated with the beliefs of their parents. They are not born with any religious baggage, and can't voluntarily choose which religion they want to worship. To me, religion is an assault on a child's innocence and natural curiosity. Why search for answers to problems, when "God did it all"? I don't think that I have the right to gamble with my children's mental, social, and emotional lives, unless I can be objectively certain that my beliefs are based on the consistency of the evidence. And, that my beliefs are truly in the child's best interest and not my own. What if I'm wrong, and my beliefs are the wrong beliefs? Do I just say, "Oops, sorry I was wrong, God made me do it?". Let them grow up and make up their own minds. There will always be people out there, that need to believe that something exists that is greater than themselves.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
"Even Einstein"? Are you stating that you believe that because of his superior intellect he had a better understanding of "god" than others?

He certainly didn't believe in your god or your religion and referred to it as naïve and childlike. So, I don't understand why you would hold him up as someone who believes as you do.


Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia (my emphases)
In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:

. . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.

It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.

Personal God
Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[13] In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[14] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[15]
Strawman.
Did I say anything about Einstein believing in a personal, caring, human-like God? No.

My post was in reply to a specific comment.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Yes, we know......so you can't claim that what you can't prove is a true fact. Suggestions are not facts....assumptions are not facts. The theory is still a theory.....no matter how you redefine the word, science can't prove their theory. That is a fact.


Since you can't prove the dreams you've had, or what you had for breakfast, can you still make claims about them? A Theory is the best scientific explanation for any natural phenomena. A Theory incorporates laws, facts, and data. A Scientific Theory is not just a theory(equivocation fallacy). What Theory supports and explains your religious beliefs? What are the underlying facts that prove God, Sin, or an afterlife?

Disproving some science is incredibly easy...most people have no idea how much of what science projects is actually hot air.

So go ahead, lets see if you can disprove even one scientific tenet, law, Theory, or fact. This should be "incredibly easy" for anyone that thinks that science is "..actually hot air". You are obviously smarter then thousands of other scientist that disagree with you. So let's see your proof, without assumptions and suggestions.

Maybe you shouldn't claim what you can't prove is a true fact. In other words, you should practice what you preach.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
If macro-evolution had as little evidence in its favor as deities, then I wouldn't believe in it either.

I know you are well-read and well-versed in multiple disciplines given your username, so maybe you can answer this... why are creationists so stuck on macroevolution as the mechanism for evolution? My understanding of macroevolution is that it is the cumulative effect over long periods of time of small evolutionary changes. Is it that creationists deliberately dig their heels in, or they truly do not understand, or it's wishful thinking?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If the law governing their formation is set, why are they not all the same?

I don't believe in physical "laws" but the processes and logic that leads to snowflakes are a little different for each and every flake. No doubt in all of history there are some flakes that were very similar but even if two "identical" have existed they could still never be truly identical because each atom is a little different and the atoms that come together to create a flake will never come together again. The world is a wondrous place that certainly includes a place for "God" but we tend to see only what we can explain so we miss the most of the wonder. We each see the world in terms of our beliefs and can't see what doesn't fit.

It could be said that science progresses by seeing and observing anomalies. All things are anomalies but we can't see it because we can only see what we believe or model.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
And Einstein didn't believe in a personal deity. He was pretty clear that his notion of 'God' was that of Spinoza and equivalent to the laws of the universe.
Never said he did.

“Einstein was wrong when he said ‘God does not play dice.’ “

Currently.
But more evidence is always being discovered. Clearer understandings.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I know you are well-read and well-versed in multiple disciplines given your username, so maybe you can answer this... why are creationists so stuck on macroevolution as the mechanism for evolution? My understanding of macroevolution is that it is the cumulative effect over long periods of time of small evolutionary changes. Is it that creationists deliberately dig their heels in, or they truly do not understand, or it's wishful thinking?

If I can butt in here...

There are numerous assumptions that go along with "macroevolution". I believe these assumptions are in error. Consciousness is ignored by evolutionists as are the existence of population bottlenecks. The missing links don't exist because they never did exist. All observed evolution is sudden and this probably applies to macroevolution as well.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
The missing links don't exist because they never did exist.

Yes, that is something else creationists cling to. I don't know who first came up with the concept of a "missing link". There are lots of links from one stage in a species's evolution to the next, and sure some of them are missing. But there has never been a missing link between X and X. Just like there is no "a gay gene" that people erroneously cling to. And this is coming from a gay man. :D

All observed evolution is sudden and this probably applies to macroevolution as well.

Because of those pesky missing links. :D Seriously, fossils are actually extremely rare.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I love hearing the members of an Oscar or an Emmy or other such prize say "But first and foremost I want to thank Jesus/God for the award". In other words, Jesus/God loves me more than you other nominees.

Ditto touchdown passers, touchdown receivers, field goal kickers, penalty kickers, goalies, center fielders, long ball batters, golfers, buzzer beater hoopsters, and the list goes on, and the list goes on: Jesus/God loves me more than you other guys.
I remember seeing Ann Curry interview Lance Armstrong after his bout with cancer years ago.. He said that he thanked the doctors and nurses and researchers who came up with the treatments, etc. Curry asked him about his 'faith', and did he want to thank God also (in so many words). Armstrong chose to thank the doctors. Curry tried 2 or 3 more times to get him to 'thank God', and he wouldn't. Bravo!

Just a few weeks ago, someone shared someone else's post on FB with me - they had just gotten over several years of cancer treatments, and the person;s family totally thanks the people that prayed for the person, thanked Jesus, etc. No mention of the doctors, etc.

It really does seem like an illness to me.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Because of those pesky missing links.

All observed evolution is sudden and this probably applies to macroevolution as well. This is a simple fact we saw dogs change from wolves and we have seen other species arise. The simple observed fact that species arise suddenly explains the absence of intervening species. When individuals are selected for a trait (behavior) they breed a new species. FACT. It is probable that the same thing occurs in nature. A behavior selected out of a species will create a new species whose individuals rarely have that behavior if the population becomes small enough and the behavior selected out is typical for the species. Wolves are wild, smart, and aggressive. If you select out a few individuals without these traits you have imposed an artificial population bottleneck and created the dog. There is no wolf/ dog nor dog/ wolf. There were individuals who mated with one another to creates wolves and then there were tame wolves which mated and created dogs.

Darwin was wrong. Experiment and observation prove it. Darwin engaged in Look and See Science and led us all astray. There is no "survival of the fittest". All individuals of a species are "fit" or they become diseased or prey. His conclusions became the very foundation of modern society because he started with false assumptions and bad definitions. Look and See Science is wrong by definition.
 
Last edited:
Top