Is It Possible to Build Faith In a Creator? Um…

03 Aug 2009 at 15:07

tastyrerun

atheism Awake! bible Darwin DNA Evolution god jehovah lies Nature peace the Watchtower Watchtower Society

For the most part the Watchtower and Awake! magazines stick to selling their views and managing the members of the Jehovah’s Witness community. Every once and awhile, however, they decide to take a pot shot at the nonbeliever. The latest Watchtower magazine in it’s article “Is It Possible to Build Faith in a Creator?” (MP3) is one such shot.

Listening to or reading an article like this one, I am usually struck by just how poor the arguments are. They don’t seem to be calculated to actually convince atheists of anything, but rather to give some hope to members of their congregations that atheists (perhaps even their own atheist family members and loved ones) can be saved. They are not a lost cause. I suppose this article, and others like it, could be persuasive to a young person, maybe a teenager, raised a Witness, whose beliefs are being challenged by a non-theist at school or perhaps a self-proclaimed atheist who has never given any serious consideration to the topic or done any real research but it hasn’t a chance against anybody who has actually studied the philosophical and logical underpinnings of either the theistic or non-theistic position.

Just for the fun of it, I’ll go ahead and summarize and answer the article. I mean, hey, why not? Somebody might find it interesting. This article can be found in the October 1, 2009 public edition of the Watchtower magazine. I transcribed it from the audio podcast edition so if there are any spelling or punctuation differences between the published article and my quotes, that’s why.

The title of the article is “Is is possible to build faith in a creator?” and the simple answer a qualified yes. I think we can all agree on that. People build faith in all sorts of things, grounded or not, every day. Can people convince themselves that there is a creator who cares about them? Of course they can. Can everybody do it? I don’t think so. It is possible to acquire enough evidence to the contrary that you can no longer be convinced, just as a child can reach a point where she is no longer capable of believing in Santa Claus. The article, of course, does not aim to reach those people. It’s strictly aiming at the people who don’t know enough yet.

In it’s very opening words, the article sets a tone that tells you what type of “atheist” they are targetting… the “emotional atheist”; people who don’t believe in a creator because of the suffering they see in the world.

Can I just take a brief moment here to say that the presence of suffering in the world is, in my opinion, the very weakest argument for atheism? The reason is simple. The presence of evil has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a creator exists. At most this would have a bearing on his personality, if he did exist. Think about it. We would assume evil and good would both exist in a universe without a God, but we would also assume the existence of both in a universe in which there was a God but he was evil, or uncaring, or dead, or incompetant, or working out some larger plan where evil was required to take place. The presence of evil has little to no bearing on the question of a creator God, but does create problems for the idea that this God is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, etc. So, people who call themselves atheists because there is evil in the world are taking a very weak position which states, in essence, that they can’t believe in a loving, caring, omnipotent God but other concepts of Gods are still on the table, logically speaking.

The article starts with this:

“When I thought about the possibility of a creator, it made me angry to think that someone might have the power to prevent human suffering but was not prepared to use it.” Thus said one former atheist who lost family members in the Holocaust. He was hardly alone in feeling as he did. When faced with atrocities, many find it difficult to believe in God or they seek solace in the idea that God does not exist. What are the major factors that cause some not to believe? Would humankind be better off, as some think, without God or religion? Is it possible for an atheist to build faith in a loving creator?

The first subheading, “Religions Failure”, brings out another weak reason for atheism: the stupidity, cruelty, and failures of organized religion. Again, just to point out, a God could exist and either a) no religions really represent him, b) he is a jerk/incompetant/etc, or c) use your imagination. Not believing in organized religion is a lousy reason for not believing in God but a great one for not believing in concentrating power in the hands of ignorant people. It’s also a good argument for encouraging free thought. To kick off their coverage of this point, they quote “Historian Alister McGrath” who says:

“What propels people towards atheism is, above all, a sense of revulsion against the excesses or failures of organized religion.”

This may be, above all, the thing that propels people towards atheism but it’s not what makes them atheists. The failure of religions they believe in cause them to become seekers. What they find, and fail to find, causes them to become atheists. It isn’t surprising that this nuance would be lost in this article and turned into such a simplistic statement as this because, well, it’s a religious article and the “historian” quoted is actually a Christian theologian. Oh my. What a shock.

One reason religious people like this explanation for atheism is that it is at least potentially fixable. They can use it as a cry to reform and improve their own organizations (yeah right) or (more likely) use it to point fingers at other sects that they seem to think are worse than they are. No wonder people don’t believe in God, I mean, what about all those Catholic pedophiles! Truly the Catholics don’t have God’s blessing like our True Religion does.

Another reason that this explanation appeals to the religious person is that it can basically be chalked up to the atheist in question being unreasonable by “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. This reinforces the believer’s own sense in their own reasonableness. The possibility that an atheist doesn’t believe in God for the same logical reasons that the believer doesn’t believe in the Easter Bunny is something no believer wants to hear, so instead it’s because atheists are angry about suffering in the world and the failure of religion. They do go on a bit in this vane with anecdotes about a few people who were turned off to religion by bitterness.

Weak stuff, Watchtower, weak stuff. You’re gonna have to do better than ‘here are some people who left religion because they felt bad’. Oh wait! What have we next? This is an interesting paragraph, and a fascinating study in rewriting history:

[The Irish man mentioned in the previous paragraph] is not alone in his revulsion for such harsh church teachings [as hellfire]. In fact, church dogma may have helped prepare the way for the theory of evolution. According to Alister McGrath, it was Darwin’s “visceral distaste for the doctrine of hellfire not his belief in evolution that raised doubts in his mind about the existence of God”. McGrath also notes Darwin’s deep grief over the death of his daughter.

OK, pay attention. You can actually see the sleight of hand here, if you just watch the cards because there is a pretty big slip up in chronology in this very paragraph. Apparently, “church dogma may have helped prepare the way for the theory of evolution” because theologian Alister McGrath said that it was Darwin’s distaste for the doctrine of hellfire that raised doubts in his mind about the existence of God… that and the fact that he was sad because his daughter died. This would all seem to indicate that Charles Darwin lost his belief in God due to bitterness over his daughter’s death and the teaching of hellfire, then developed the theory of evolution in response to it or something to that effect. The paragraph certainly tries hard to convey the impression that evolutionary theory developed as a response to church doctrines. The problem is that this is entirely backwards. Darwin first drew an evolutionary tree in a notebook in 1837 and began working on this theory of evolution at that time as a result of things he had discovered having traveled on The H. M. S. Beagle. His daughter Anne wouldn’t be born for another 4 years and wouldn’t die until another 10 years after that. Darwin had already been working on expounding and researching the theory of natural selection for (at least) 18 years by the time of that event. What’s more, Darwin’s autobiography makes quite clear that he was a Biblical literalist up until (and throughout) his voyage on the Beagle and that over the years of research and discovery of the evidence of evolution he began to become at first a less literal believer, and ultimately an agnostic. Darwin’s religious beliefs transformed over time as he sought to adapt them to the information he was learning. They most certainly didn’t “prepare the way for the theory of evolution”, although they were almost certainly altered by it.

Another interesting paragraph follows:

For some, the practice of religion is synonomous with mindlessness and fanaticism. Irina, who was disgusted with empty religious sermons and repetitive litanies, relates, “It seemed to me that religious people did not think.”

To which I must simply say…

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA … OMG!!!! REALLY?!?!?!?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Oh my… sorry, I’m crying over here I’m laughing so hard… The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is going to criticize mindless fanaticism? Really? Oh goodness… The pluck… the audacity… Try this at home kiddies. Take a copy of the Watchtower Library CD-ROM and search it for the phrase “independent thought” or “independent thinking” and email me with what you find. See if you can find ANY reference to thinking for yourself that isn’t called demonic or dangerous. What do you call a person who is convinced that thinking for themselves is dangerous and turns over their mind to the guidance of a religious organization? Mindless fanatic sounds about right to me, actually. Kinda fits the definition to a tee.

The next subheading is a bit odd… It argues a point that makes no sense to an atheist. “Better Off Without God?” says that some atheists reject God because they think we’re better off without Him. Which makes no sense because if they are actually atheists, they would say that He’s not here in the first place and never was so we’ve always been without Him, so how could we know if we’d be better off with or without God? We can’t be better off without something that never existed in the first place. I mean, am I better or worse off with or without a purple unicorn? It’s nonsense. Would we be better off without religion, now, that is a question worth discussing.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Not surprisingly then, many people view religion as an obstacle to human progress and peace. Some have even asked themselves if humankind would be better off without God and religion. However, would such a wholesale rejection of religious thinking bring it’s own problems? The 18th century philospher Voltaire bitterly protested the abuses of the corrupt churches of his time, yet he considered the existence of a supreme being to be fundamental to our moral sense. Later, the German philosopher Freidrich Neitschze famously proclaimed that God is dead but he was afraid of the moral vacuum and the possible harm that might result from atheistic thinking. Were such fears justified?

Author Keith Ward notes that as mankind entered the modern era, barbarism did not decrease but instead reached heights never previously imaginable. Nor have experiments with atheism freed mankind from the failings of human nature such as corruption and intolerance. These facts have lead many thinking people, even atheists, to recognize the moral value of belief in God. Keith Ward highlights the beneficial influence of belief in God. “Faith adds an insistent moral demand. A responsibility to care for the world that God has created.”

“Author Keith Ward” is, surprise, another cleric and theologian. Gee. I wonder why he would argue that faith in God adds a moral demand. I mean, I think that lack of faith in God is a massive moral obligation. If there is no God to save us, doesn’t that put the responsibility on our shoulders to help the people, and planet, that we love? Doesn’t the lack of divine intervention mean that we have to be mature and responsible and do what is right because nobody else will? It works both ways.

I’m currently reading a book written by H. G. Wells in 1901 called “Anticipations” in which he attempts to forecast the world of the 20th century from a sober, sociological perspective. He is fairly dead on in many surprising ways when he talks about the impacts on culture and society of the rise of technologies that shrink distances such as cars, roads, and telephones. I bring this up because I wish to make the point that most of the “barbarism” of the 20th and 21st century is attributable to changes in the concepts of property ownership and wealth, technology, and the resulting changes in societal and cultural norms and has nothing to do with some sudden rise of atheism. Atheism, it should be noted, is also not a cure for barbarism. It is possible to be an atheist and a psychotic despot (Robespierre?). Atheism is a statement about the nature of reality, not a moral belief system. It isn’t a cure or a disease, just a position of belief about how things are. What is done with that information is up to the individual.

Numerous recent studies have indicated that there is an increased level of altruism among the religious. Altruism, in turn, tends to bring on a measure of satisfaction. Such findings reinforce the value of the principle set out by Jesus, “there is more happiness in giving than there is in recieving.” – Acts 20:35

If this is true, and with no reference I can’t tell if it is, that just means that we atheist’s need to get on the ball. Also, on a marginally related note, the Watchtower Society doesn’t support charities, or any sort of material altruism, and discourages it’s members from doing so. Just sayin’.

OK, so, little to see here so far. How about the next subheading entitled “Further Causes of Disbelief”?

Many are taught that evolution is an established fact. Annala, for example, was educated in atheistic Albania. “In school we were taught that to believe in God was naive and backward,” she relates. “I regularly learned wonderful things about plants and organic life but I attributed everything to evolution since this made it look as if we were in harmony with scientific thinking.” She admits today that the proofs that were given had to be accepted blindly.

(Supplementary Information)

Questions Left Unanswered by Evolution

- How could life come from something without life? (Psalms 36:9)
- Why do animals and plants reproduce only according to their kinds? (Gen. 1:11,21,24-28)
- If humans descend from inferior monkeys, why did not a single superior ape man survive? (Psalm 8:5,6)
- How can altruism be explained by the theory of the survival of the fittest? (Romans 2:14,15)
- Does mankind have any real hope for the future? (Psalms 37:29)

Yay! Anti-evolution stuff!!! I knew it was coming eventually!

As a public service, in the interests of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Writing Department, I will answer their unanswered questions for them. I anticipate a medal, a letter of commendation, and a published article in the next Watchtower magazine informing their readers of the answers to these important questions.

Ahem…

Q. How could life come from something without life?

A. Chemistry. It’s tough to fathom but life is ultimately a chemistry reaction that has been going on for about 4 billion years, uninterrupted. When your biochemistry breaks down, you die. It started as soon as a chain of molecules strung together that had physical properties caused it to make copies. There was no will, no intent, no “life”, no metabolism, but there were copies and the copies weren’t perfect. In fact, the imperfection of the copying introduced variety and some of the molecular chains became more prevalent than others due to this variety, and left unchecked for about 4 billion years this chemistry reaction transformed our planet’s atmosphere, created all the variety of life we now have, and lead up to me typing this sentence. It’s complicated, yes, and amazing, yes, but quite logical and supported by a good deal of experimental science, paleontological work, and DNA evidence. A counter question for the Watchtower: How could life (God) come from nothing at all? I mean, at least we evolutionists have an explanation for the development of complexity over time, you just sort of say “the most complex thing ever (God) just IS, with no reason”. You can email me the answer. I’ll publish it here.

Q. Why do animals and plants reproduce only according to their kinds?

A. DNA. But, of course, they don’t make exact copies, they create variation which, although slight, produces new kinds in time. Question for the Watchtower: What exactly is a kind? I mean, there are many documented speciation events, so that ain’t it. And speciation events, over millions of years, create new families, and the DNA and fossil records record that. So, just what the hell does this question even mean? Giraffes will give birth to giraffes, not kittens. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory.

Q. If humans descend from inferior monkeys, why did not a single superior ape man survive?

A. They did, up to a point, and then they either: became us, got killed by us, assimilated with us, or went extinct in some other way. Homo Habilus, Neanderthal man, Homo Floriensis, Homo Erectus… there have been multiple branches of our family tree, but we’re the only ones left. This is not unprecendented in the animal kingdom. The monkeys who did survive had the advantage of not competing with Homo Sapiens in their survival niche.

Q. How can altruism be explained by the theory of the survival of the fittest?

A. Short answer: group selection. Long answer. Read this. Darwin knew the answer to this. Question to the Watchtower: why are you presenting as “unanswered” a question that Darwin answered 150 years ago?

Q. Does mankind have any real hope for the future?

A. The remains to be seen, doesn’t it? Although, they are correct that evolution does not attempt to answer this question. Not sure why anybody would think it would.

That was fun. Moving on with the article, they go back to blaming bitterness and injustice and the fact that God doesn’t seem to care. They make mention of the fact that they have a really great sounding explanation for the problem of evil and that this has been useful bait for converting the less sophisticated non-believer. [Not their choice of words. - Ryan] I don’t feel like going in to all the reasons their theodicy fails analysis here, so that will just have to either wait for another day or (if you’re really interested) you can search my blog here in case I’ve written about it in the past. I might have.

Finally we get to the big payoff. The money shot. “What helped them build faith in a creator?” For the Swedish guy is was that the person who Witnessed to him was patient and calm. For the Russian girl it was that “humans, who were supposed to be an evolutionary improvement over monkeys, suffered from emotional problems that did not afflict monkeys”. I have no response to that. It is the weirdest reason for rejecting evolution I’ve ever heard. If you need it spelled out for you why this is retarded, you might be one of those “mindless fanatics”. If you really can’t see the problem here, shoot me an email. I’ll spell it all out for you. The next guy, Leif, of Scandinavian origin, realized he had never previously questioned his atheism or evolution. They specifically don’t mention what amazing things he discovered upon questioning his blind obedience to Darwin and absence of God, but he suggests that “a knowledge of Bible prophecies, and their fulfillment, can help an atheist to start thinking”. Yes, thinking about the amazing abilities of people to shoehorn historical events into vaguely written texts from long ago. I’m currently finishing up the initial draft of a non-fiction book and beginning work on a novel. The book after that is going to be about prophecy. You heard it here first folks…

Finally, they mention a guy who was disillusioned, prayed, and a JW showed up at his door. That was a shocker. When this “atheist” was told that evil in the world’s governments was caused by Satan, he was converted. No. Seriously.

They end with this:

Religious hypocrisy, such atheistic teachings as evolution, and the prevalence of wickedness have caused many to doubt or even to deny the existence of a creator. However, if you allow it to, the Bible can provide satisfying answers to your questions. It also reveals God’s thoughts. Thoughts of peace and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope. Jer 29:11

For Bernadette, who’s child was born disabled and who doubted the existence of a creator, that hope became like a comforting dressing on the wounds of her personal suffering. The Bible’s explanation of God’s permission of suffering has touched the mind and heart of many former atheists. By taking the time to find the Bible’s answers to such vital questions you to may come to be convinced that there is a God who is, in fact, as stated at Acts 17:27 “not far off from each one of us”.

In summary, I would have to say that this article lacks any actual substance and really paints a pretty poor picture of the Watchtower Society’s capabilities in engaging an atheist. The typical Jehovah’s Witness, recieving an education like this, is going to be woefully unequipped to deal with or understand the thinking of an atheist. They will assume the person is an atheist because they are bitter and emotional, not rational and deductive. They will assume that the atheist is unaware of the theodicies and rationalizations that believers have pulled out of the Bible. They will assume that the atheist just has a bad attitude about God. They will never consider, for one instant, the possibility that the atheist is correct. This is why an article like this is published. It is not to convert the atheist, it’s to reassure the believer.

More From Ryan Sutter

lucky widgets

ryan, what you are lacking is the reading of a strong's concordance. and yes i was a witness with you, the difference is instead of believing the surface of the bible as you do (had). you need to learn of the real bible. the dino's were of course real and proven millions of years ago, but they are in the bible. and the earth has 3 different worlds discussed from 3 different times. i remember you well and how you always were in the music realm while in the kingdom hall :)....but you maybe we should have kept music....music and god as god. most times as i recall you were always more into your music than god. hmmm who is this you will ask...more to come. and yes you did have it rough as did all of us. but please look deeper intead of at other things of the know it all society of nothingness. ily and miss you. maybe our beloved rhett cost us more than his life when he left us. but yes i still believe he will be back.

EstherS

How incredibly condescending! A bit more humility might be in order if you wish to persuade a stray lamb back to the fold. Clever of you not to reveal your identity since you, as a Witness, shouldn't be on this site, right?

lucky widgets

lol, i have not been a practicing Jehovah's witness for many years, ...and humility? have you read the tone of these blogs?...speaking of humility. hundreds or should i say thousands of loving people miss you ryan probably much more than they do me, but then that is not an issue here. actually i was not trying to create an issue but rather only making a statement that i feel was called for. after all too many people within ryan's family have been hurt do to religious differences as jesus fortold would happen in the last of the last days. and as for a humanist, i was there long before you (ryan) began questioning things that we were being taught. but i feel i found the balance and how to "avoid" those who seek out to make us miserable. soon i hope you will rediscover the true god who "is there" for the finding. but it is more one on one than we once believed. i was always in "awe" over your superior intellect in most areas ryan. as a matter of fact from the time you learned to tie your shoes you were a step ahead of most kids within a ten year age. and no i was never given the superior intellect of you, but i do have common sense. i hope to meet you esther someday if i ever get back there as well as sid who i only saw briefly (and if more i apologize as i have not been there much). i prefer to stay as a guest until ....? please do a little reading on the bible's true view of the flood in the original languages... http://www.biblestudysite.com/answers13.htm#5 . i dont necessarily agree with all of this but many things of god are explained in depth as to genesis, time lapses in scripture, mistranslated scripture and much more. ily my missing brother and fellow musician and ....
oh well enough for now. see you again (esther i mean no bad intent here only looking for an agape loved one) and maybe someday you can teach me a little about this computer blogging etc... IMY

tastyrerun

I'm not sure who you are but I am curious why you are here to insult me? Seems a bit uncalled for...

For the record, when I was a Witness I kept music, music and God, God. To say otherwise betrays a deep lack of understanding of both myself and the rest of my family and the role music played in our lives. Music was my bond to my brother. It was his first love and I followed him in it. It was never my God or his, it was our hobby and a way for us to communicate. Your suggestion that it usurped our faith is deeply misguided.

As for humility, well, a person can't protest that they're humble. I can only say that when I was a Witness I believed I was privy to The Truth about life, the universe and everything. I believed that I was a member of a special group that was chosen by the creator of the universe, and that I was in communion with him on some level. I felt special and I pitied the poor worldly people who didn't understand what they were missing. I was so happy to have that confidence and assuredness that there was a God and I knew his name and if I continued to follow his will, I would continue to be happy. Then I lost it. I learned that the beliefs I had were based on a denial of history, the tragic accident of reading myths and stories as if they were real. I had to tear myself down completely, and rebuild myself. It was hard, and painful, and nearly drove me to suicide. At no point was I thinking, "Hah hah hah, I'm so smart! I am so great!", I was thinking, "I can't believe this is happening to me. I can't believe what I'm learning but I can't deny it because it's the truth. I've been wrong and my life is over." To have persisted in being a Witness, deciding that my internal sense of faith was more reliable than external evidence would have been the ultimate in arrogance. To follow evidence wherever it lead and accept the conclusions once they became inescapable was humble. Reason is humble, faith is arrogant. Reason accepts things as they are and overturns faulty conclusions even when it hurts, faith decides how things are or how we want them to be, and tells us that we are special and unique and better at understanding than other people regardless of the evidence.

I didn't become who I am today because of character flaws, (although I'm sure I have character flaws like anybody else). I got here because of evidence. If you want to take issue with evidence, discuss evidence. If you want to insult me, please stop, I've been through a lot of that, and I'm tired.

lucky widgets

i never insulted you in any way and i deeply apologize if i came off as this. actually i felt the same way about you when i read this blog because i also read most of this online information and always came away with the same conclusion. that although i chose to go away from these people who were very loving as a majority, i still love them and only wish they would look at other knowledge that is present. i did. but interestingly enough i found that the more i looked, the more i found god to be real, only not exactly as i had believed. i read the anti-witness info out there. i read the anti-russel literature out there. i asked myself if i was in his situation when attacked by the courts, how would i answer the questions he was asked and wrote them down. my answers were almost exactly as he had answered.

but i only wrote here because i still love you as i always had. you were one of the only few people among the witnesses who still talked to me after a lot of slander. you got me all wrong. and i also was to the point of suicide many many times. but i am still here and hope you never choose this route. that would only be more pain for many within your family and friends who have not read what you have and quite frankly do not understand you as i do.

i only wrote from the aspect that you take a look at another scenario. if you saw me today you would hug me as before as i would you. we are still the same people we always were only our beliefs went different directions.

i began re-reading the bible from cover to cover. i came to the part of the festivals in the bible being celebrated and again began figuring time things and have reached a further conclusion that maybe the time prophecies were not taken far enough after my early disputed views of wondering why they wouldn't stop teaching all this time stuff. one simple example is taking the date of a festival being comanded to the israelites to order them to rest on a certain day. i applied the same bible math and surprising came to the date that the watchtower men were thrown into jail and wondered why they had never taught this in their time prophecies as they were "forced into the day of his rest". i looked for any other religion to see if it could apply to anybody else, and found none. so i looked further. i found many strikingly similar situations concerning jehovah's witnesses and nobody else. including the 8th king's rule as beginning about the time that the society signed on with the united nations as a partner and broke off the relationship a short period of time later. but many many things as this. so i personally will never condemn these people as you do for being wrong, because i am not so sure that they are wrong, but rather waiting for the revealing of the final things such as the recent gathering of the kings together within the UN before the cry for peace and security.

enough for now i have an appointment. i love you ryan, please dont think badly of me. the intention is all good. and as for the music thing, i only said that you always spoke more of the band things to me when inside the hall than god's things. sorry it was my personal observation and not necessarily fact as i was not the others who you spoke to. maybe i did the same until i noticed it hindered my association there and began avoiding the issue of music within the congregation.

tastyrerun

I don't think badly of you. And it doesn't bother me that you still believe. Whomever you are, I really wish you well and if you've got something that means something to you, that's awesome.

I take it you and I would disagree on a lot religiously, but I really couldn't care less about that. I am a humanist, a Buddhist, and an atheist. There won't be a lot of common ground. You consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God, I consider it to be a man-made book, so it carries no weight with me. Likewise, the evidences and experiences that have convinced me that the things I currently believe are true are too many and varied to relate in this forum and even if I related them, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for anything without doing research of your own. So, religion is pretty pointless ground for us to tread, ultimately. If you're happy, I'm happy. If you can accept that from my perspective I have absolutely no doubt that my current beliefs are true and based on evidence I can accept that from your perspective the reverse is true.

tastyrerun

One more thing... would ya knock it off with all the talk about my intellect? Trust me, I'm just a guy, like any other guy, who likes football, and nachos, and video games, and stuff. You make it sound like I'm some sort of scholar or something. I'm just curious about things is all. All this intellect stuff's embarrassin'. ;-)

lucky widgets

ok take care bro, and sorry but i still miss and love ya. hope to meet esther someday, you two seem happy and if there is no life after this then i guess you are man enough to make that decision. but please stop rebuking those who love you because of their beliefs. ok i will knock off the intellect stuff, but it is true, you always were a step above most of us in this catagory....:)

tastyrerun

"please stop rebuking those who love you because of their beliefs"

Sigh...

I am not rebuking anybody by saying their beliefs are incorrect. This isn't a criticism of a person, it's a criticism of an idea. If somebody criticizes something I believe, it is not a personal criticism of me, it's about the idea, not the person.

I do not, and have not, made this personal .

When the Watchtower Society makes the claim that there was a global flood in the year 2370 BCE that wiped out the entire human race, they are making a verifiable or falsifiable claim. If I examine that claim and find that the evidence indicates that, no, there was no global flood in that year (or any other), I am not rebuking a person who believes in the flood, I'm disputing the factual basis for a claim. The individual believer is not my target. I mean no personal disrespect. I am simply stating that, whether you like it or not, there is overwhelming evidence that this claim is false. In my case, I find the evidence from ice core samples and bristlecone pine trees to be indisputable and conclusive, although there is literally no evidence of a global flood and tons of other evidence that specifically refutes the claim.

There are people I know and love who believe things that I know to be false. I don't care. They can believe the moon is made of bleu cheese if they like. It doesn't matter to me. The problem is that they not only insist on believing these things, but they cut me out of their lives and punish me because I can't believe them. They further consider it an attack or a rebuke if I say why I don't believe what they believe, even though I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about an idea.

Is it because these ideas are so hard to believe in that believers get so upset when somebody fails to believe or considers it a personal attack when somebody explains why they don't believe?

lucky widgets

have you read this?.... http://www.biblestudysite.com/answers13.htm#5 as i asked you to. will only take a few minutes and is not from the watchtower. and if correct will not the watchower change their beliefs if this proves to be so as they have in amny other things?

tastyrerun

That's cool, and they're right, if there was a flood at all, it wasn't global.

Of course, this is not why I'm not a Witness. The Flood was the first thing I found out they were wrong about, but certainly not enough to make me leave the Org. I just figured there would be New Light™ someday.

How about this instead? Adam and Eve didn't exist and there was no Garden of Eden or original sin. That's a much bigger deal. It means that the whole idea of redemption by sacrifice, the entire basic theory of Christianity, is meaningless. Can you come up with a way demonstrate that whole Garden of Eden thing?

lucky widgets

yes as a matter of fact i can. you need to see that there is a six day creation of man. and of course although i feel i found the answer to time prophecy as it works two ways..."a day for a thousand years AND a thousand years for a day". this of course multiplies the time into eons of time. i am learning that it is entirely possible and plausible for heaven's timetable as one and earthys timetable as another. an example the 1260 days as witnesses teach as earth's time could have a parallel time of 14,999.76 years using heaven time. and of course this would or could explain the 150 days of water covering the earth could have a meaning of 6249.9 years, so what could this mean of heaven time and prophecy? nothing to you but i know it has a significance but only needs to be found. of course this would NOT have been in noah's time as it had to be at some time eons ago as all other time would be multiplied with the same heaven math. so logically it could be earth's time table of limit and god's timetable of total.

but anyway ryan i understand your reasonings for doubting or stopping believing but i firmly believe it will be uncovered as bible truth with different understanding.

tastyrerun

It's hard to know how to respond to this...

You've apparently invented, completely from scratch, an entire new concept that doesn't exist in the Bible at all and then used it to give the Bible wiggle room to allow it to remain true in your head, while simultaneously missing my point entirely and providing no answer to what I asked.

I'll attempt to clarify by being more specific about why I say Adam and Eve never existed.

It's not a matter of years. It's a matter of genetics. Analysis of human DNA has shown conclusively that our species did not originate in the middle east, but in Africa. So, even if there were an ancestral home of mankind like Eden, the Bible would be wrong about it's location. Additionally, genetic evidence has clinched the case for share common descent with chimpanzees of a common ancestor. Have you ever heard of an endogenous retrovirus? Would you like to learn about why this is the absolute clinching piece of evidence against special creation of human beings?

You can invent all the methods of interpreting the Bible you want to try to give yourself all the years you need, you can't change the evidence that we didn't originate in the Middle East and we absolutely, conclusively, share a common ancestor with another species.

lucky widgets

i did not invent the bible timetable but rather try to find the correct interpretation of when. as for where, since you have not read all of the material i sent that is within the same pages as the flood info i sent to link, then you do not see what i am referring to. i agree that yes africa was the first, however if you look beneath the surface of the bible there was a first creation of man, followed by the creation of adam and eve in his image. and if you go back to the link i shared with you concerning the flood issue, you will see that the other pages within the same site agree with you as to the creation of man in africa as being the first.

as for the remaining timetable info, the bible book of job was written about book number two in the bible unlike i was previously taught. and you will also find this in those same pages with the link and the explanation as to why it has to be so. and the witnesses do not teach this either or at least did not when i was involved with them.

again the difference between us is that i agree with science and try to find the common denominator of science and god. and as the bible explicitly shows within the first few sentences... there was eons of time involved within those first few sentences. and if you were to look at the original language of the manuscripts along with the strong's concordance you will see this is posatively the case. one example, the bible says that it was a formless waste in the new world translation. in the original translation it says that it became a waste or was laid to waste, after it says in the beginning. this leaves an ungiven period of time. however it refers to a time when the earth was not a waste as it could not become a waste from non waste. if you read the link pages i sent in entirety you will see the correct translation of the scripture from the language it was written in. and yes if this is not the case then science has proved the bible to be a waste itself. but i dont believe this to be the case, but rather i believe it was simply mis-translated (temporarily).

lucky widgets

as for human dna, i read that the reason that pig valves are used as heart and blood circulatory system parts is because the pig valve is closer to human compatability than apes. how can this be if apes are our common relative? next maybe science will try to say we came from pigs.

Falterer

Hi, lucky, my name's Joe. I've been getting email updates from this thread since I commented earlier. I wanted to introduce myself before saying anything else, so you don't think the conversation's turning into a lucky-widgets pile-on! :)

Your bit about valve compatibility piqued my interest, but I'm not sure what you read on that topic is accurate. I dug around a bit on Google, and it seems that availability rather than compatibility is the reason we use porcine and bovine valves rather than those from similarly sized apes. These two articles stood out in particular:

"Chimpanzees, although most compatible with standard selection criteria (e.g., compatibility of size and blood types), are unavailable as an acceptable source of clinical xenotransplantation."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol2no1/michler.htm

"Chimpanzee Heart Was Not Rejected by Human Recipient"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender....

The reason we use pig valves seems to be that they're cheaply available animals we already farm and slaughter routinely, whose hearts are similar enough to ours in size and compatibility. But not so similar, by the way, that we don't need to use two porcine valves to do the job of one human valve. Pig and human hearts evolved to be a similar size and shape, but not quite _that_ similar!

Re. the day/year & year/day calculation in this comment: http://u.nu/459h3 -- I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that you'd multiply the 6000 years by 365 days (about 2 million days), and each of those would represent a thousand years, totaling 2 billion? Perhaps I misunderstood your method, but otherwise I don't think that number correlates with anything particularly helpful, unless Adam & Eve were single celled organisms! :)

lucky widgets

amny=many

David Bullis

Well Ryan, that was the weakest criticism of a "Watchtower" article that I have ever read. Granted, you may not be familiar with the teachings of the Bible, or you may not believe the Bible at all. That's up to you. But don't denigrate its teachings nor the reaction that some people have to it. Jehovah's Witnesses, world wide, come into contact with people or all sorts or religious, non-religious and humanistic views. Believe it or not, many including athiests and agnostics really enjoy learning about what the Bible says regarding the hope of human kind. If you don't that's fine. But don't minimalize those who do.

Falterer

Please refute the weaknesses you see in Ryan's criticisms. Merely calling something a "denigration" without explaining why refutes nothing. The undisputed (at least in Ryan's post) fact that lots of people enjoy learning what Jehovah's Witnesses have to say refutes nothing Ryan has said.

Twice in your comment you command Ryan not to do things: don't denigrate the Bible; don't "minimalize" people who like learning about it. Not only have you not shown where Ryan has done this, you have no authority to make such demands anyway.

JJ2014

The following SUMMARIES OF OVER 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CRIMINAL and CIVIL COURT CASES will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they ACTUALLY practice such day to day.

The following website summarizes 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children, as well as nearly 400 CRIMINAL cases -- most involving MURDERS:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

jwdivorces.bravehost.com

The following website summarizes over 500 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, incidents involving problem JW Employees, and other secret JW "history" court cases:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

jwemployees.bravehost.com

david

Thanks for the great post. Your last sentence summed it up nicely.

Falterer

Nicely done.

"Why did not a single superior ape man survive?"

Speaking as a singular, superior ape man, I feel prematurely discounted by this question. I survive!

(That said, I'm rather too grateful to my ancestors, to whom I owe my existence, to really consider them "inferior". They were way cool. None of them were monkeys, though--I must concede to that point. Not in my clade, anyway.)

ryansutter.net

Is It Possible to Build Faith In a Creator? Um…

More From Ryan Sutter

Related posts

Meta

Archives

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta