I have now met a real life creationist.

[none]

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

That is simply not true. It can scientifically be proven that life comes only from life. Abiogenesis is just an idea - totally unproven and unprovable. That is what the bible says and that is the only scientific explanation of the origin of man. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) You have no other explanation.
The bible accurately describes the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31).
Before man was able to provide photographic and other evidence, the bible speaks of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22)
A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible correctly identifies the hare as a "chewer of cud." (Leviticus 11:4,6)
The vast amount of water on the earth are limited, by God's decree, to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11)
The bible correctly describes the water cycle. (Job 36:27,*28)
There is a lot more.

Great, if life only comes from life show the evidence that accounts for the fact that life didn't exist a few billion years ago? Atoms didn't always exist, should be easy for you

 

[funinspace]

Ha ha... So all those ex-JW's are spreading lies because... conspiracy? All of JW's dirty laundry was aired a long time ago. Today, any moron, has the skill to accurately inform themselves of what is going on inside JW. But what is the most telling is JW's own material they put out. I'm sure, while you're on the inside, you're not aware of how insane it looks from the outside. I know what you're thinking. No, it has nothing to do with "heart condition" or faith in Christ. Nobody has issues with JWs theological beliefs. It's not JWs beliefs that are insane. It's how they enforce and try to spread them.

The good things don't cancel out the bad things.

Good people do not practice bad things.
When a good man does a bad thing, he has become a bad man. That does not work in the reverse. A good deed done by a bad man does not make him a good man, simply because he is a bad man.
“. . .By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

Perhaps the most dangerous belief to hold. History is full of people who sacrificed themselves for others in the pursuit of goodness, but ended up doing nothing but evil. Do you think the Muslims who travel to Syria to fight for ISIS do so because they are evil? These people are willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives for what they think is a greater good. These are not evil people. The Crusaders fighting in the holy land were motivated by their powerful faith, and wish to sacrifice themselves in the service of Christ. All the missionaries that went to South America and Africa, meant well. Ended up causing total havoc, destroying indigenous institutions that had helped the natives for centuries. All the communists who fought for "the cause". They only wanted equality for all. Ended up being the tools of dictators.

Ooohhh, it must be Bible Cherry Picking Day.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Romans 3:21-23 But now apart [k]from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [l]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all [m]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Yep, the JW's have a real hang up thinking their cult/sect is special. It does really seem to feed this good/bad kind of absurdity...

This isn't a problem for JW. Because they have a special book of interpretation that tells them what the Bible means. You know how, when you argue with your gf, and she says everything is ok, when it's not. Apparently, the Bible is the same. That's why you need the special companion book. Or you'd have to, God forbid, have to figure all this stuff on your own. And we wouldn't want people thinking, now would we.

This reminds me of one of my favorite religious jokes: What's the difference between liberal and fundagelicals Christians? The liberals understand that they are partaking at a cafeteria.

What cracks me up is that Charles Taze Russell had no qualifications. He was literally just a random dude, absolutely clueless about context, just winging it. Anybody could to just as good a job as he did in the "Commentary of the Old and New Testament". Not to mention that he had a new translation done of the Bible itself. Hilarious. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Well, he was at least less whacked out than Joseph Smith...well maybe, those half dozen 'the end is here' kind of fizzled out badly

But I'm all for people making up their own interpretations of holy texts. I can't stand fundamentalists and litteralists. Which Jehovas Witnesses aren't. So that's a point in their favour IMHO.

It was my understanding that JWs think the Bible is also God-breathed, which pretty much makes them literalists IMPOV. Sure, they re-branded (or co-opted ideas that had died out) several significant tenants of the pre-existing sects out there. But once it was re-branded, it was as locked in as any fundagelical group. Sure they still evolve over time as reality forces changes here and there, but that is true of all fundagelical sects.

 

[wilson]

I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

So, I guess these books were written by blithering illiterates - right?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279

The world is full of extremely good people being willing tools of evil. Being good, or having a strong faith, is no defense against evil.

If you mean by "defense" the prevention of evil, you're right. Faith won't prevent it.
But faith is certainly a defense against the infiltration of evil into the lives of the faithful.

Here is the spiritual armor of the faithful:
“. . .Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing 1. the breastplate of righteousness,  and having your feet shod in 2. readiness to declare the good news of peace.  Besides all of this, take up the 3.large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows.  Also, accept 4. the helmet of salvation, and 5. the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word,  while with every form of 6. prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit. . . .” (Ephesians 6:14-18)

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, I guess these books were written by blithering illiterates - right?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279

You link to The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked

By "scientific racism," I mean any argument that relies on allegedly scientific ideas — whether genetics or phrenology — to claim that some racial groups are naturally superior to others.

So, yeah, I'd say that blithering illiterate comes pretty close.
Pretending to use science to advance an ideology that they held independent of the actual science, like creationism, means the author isn't really reading the science he's pretending to flog.
Whether it's a matter of willful ignorance or just stupidity must be evaluated on a case-by-case.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But I'm all for people making up their own interpretations of holy texts. I can't stand fundamentalists and litteralists. Which Jehovas Witnesses aren't. So that's a point in their favour IMHO.

It was my understanding that JWs think the Bible is also God-breathed, which pretty much makes them literalists IMPOV. Sure, they re-branded (or co-opted ideas that had died out) several significant tenants of the pre-existing sects out there. But once it was re-branded, it was as locked in as any fundagelical group. Sure they still evolve over time as reality forces changes here and there, but that is true of all fundagelical sects.

I know JW say they are, but you don't need to study the Bible a lot to understand that Russell just made shit up as he went along. I mean... I understand him. He wanted to understand the Bible better, but if you did you needed to live in Europe. This is where all the libraries and all the expertise was. They just didn't have access to that kind of information in USA back then. They just had to wing it.

But it's a bit farcical that they can't admit this now. I mean... it's obvious to everybody. Not just a little bit. But completely obvious. I think it has to be obvious to members of JW as well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But faith is certainly a defense against the infiltration of evil into the lives of the faithful.

No, it's not.
It's a basic tenet of the con artist that you can bilk a Good Christain more easily than anyone else, if you can first convince them that you're Christain, too. Their faith actually lowers their defenses against evil. Whole scams are based on this fact.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, I guess these books were written by blithering illiterates - right?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279

The world is full of extremely good people being willing tools of evil. Being good, or having a strong faith, is no defense against evil.

If you mean by "defense" the prevention of evil, you're right. Faith won't prevent it.
But faith is certainly a defense against the infiltration of evil into the lives of the faithful.

Here is the spiritual armor of the faithful:
“. . .Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing 1. the breastplate of righteousness,  and having your feet shod in 2. readiness to declare the good news of peace.  Besides all of this, take up the 3.large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows.  Also, accept 4. the helmet of salvation, and 5. the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word,  while with every form of 6. prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit. . . .” (Ephesians 6:14-18)

That is an excellent example. Lots of people have faith in that whites were superior to other races. So they studied it. Initially they found what they were looking for. As humans tend to do. But over time peer-review started tearing the works to pieces. This is how science works. Science knew that race biology was complete bollocks well before the Nazi party took power in Germany. If people had been better educated, we might have been able to avoid WW2.

Christianity didn't save Germany from Nazism. Hitler was a Catholic, and all Germans except the communists were Christian. The church had taught people that faith is more important than knowledge. So they just applied that to race theory as well. That's a fact. You can't argue against htat.

Teaching people that faith is a virtue is evil IMHO. Skepticism is a virtue. Faith is not.

No, faith is not an armour against evil. History teaches us that faith provides a wide open doorway for evil people to manipulate good people through.

There's Christians who share my view. Kierkegaard said that a belief that isn't questioned is worthless. If you are guided by faith, you have no idea if you are a tool of evil or not. But if you are guided by doubt and skepticism you're much less likely to get suckered in by charlatans.

And a good way to avoid getting suckered in, is to avoid anybody who says faith is a virtue. If they say that they might just be a person who is trying to fool you. And Kierkegaard isn't just any dude. He was, without a doubt, the smartest Christian who have ever lived.

 

[funinspace]

It was my understanding that JWs think the Bible is also God-breathed, which pretty much makes them literalists IMPOV. Sure, they re-branded (or co-opted ideas that had died out) several significant tenants of the pre-existing sects out there. But once it was re-branded, it was as locked in as any fundagelical group. Sure they still evolve over time as reality forces changes here and there, but that is true of all fundagelical sects.

I know JW say they are, but you don't need to study the Bible a lot to understand that Russell just made shit up as he went along. I mean... I understand him. He wanted to understand the Bible better, but if you did you needed to live in Europe. This is where all the libraries and all the expertise was. They just didn't have access to that kind of information in USA back then. They just had to wing it.

But it's a bit farcical that they can't admit this now. I mean... it's obvious to everybody. Not just a little bit. But completely obvious. I think it has to be obvious to members of JW as well.

What, you mean that the Hebrews didn't build the Great Pyramid of Giza under Yahweh's direction Yep, much like Joseph Smith...

What is really funky about Russell's sect building is that he was actually fairly wealthy and spent a fortune in the late 1800's promoting their nonsense. Russell had up to 4,000 newspapers publishing his sermons at 1 point. And still, their sect is half the size of the LDS.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Russell had up to 4,000 newspapers publishing his sermons at 1 point. And still, their sect is half the size of the LDS.

Well, it's those 'end is nigh' dates. He offered concrete proof of his credibility and people can see that the world didn't end.
Smith had his golden plates and the attestations of witnesses, but he hid them away before anyone else could try to translate them and say 'This is gibberish!'

 

[funinspace]

Russell had up to 4,000 newspapers publishing his sermons at 1 point. And still, their sect is half the size of the LDS.

Well, it's those 'end is nigh' dates. He offered concrete proof of his credibility and people can see that the world didn't end.
Smith had his golden plates and the attestations of witnesses, but he hid them away before anyone else could try to translate them and say 'This is gibberish!'

It must be Asherah's will then

 

[DrZoidberg]

I know JW say they are, but you don't need to study the Bible a lot to understand that Russell just made shit up as he went along. I mean... I understand him. He wanted to understand the Bible better, but if you did you needed to live in Europe. This is where all the libraries and all the expertise was. They just didn't have access to that kind of information in USA back then. They just had to wing it.

But it's a bit farcical that they can't admit this now. I mean... it's obvious to everybody. Not just a little bit. But completely obvious. I think it has to be obvious to members of JW as well.

What, you mean that the Hebrews didn't build the Great Pyramid of Giza under Yahweh's direction Yep, much like Joseph Smith...

What is really funky about Russell's sect building is that he was actually fairly wealthy and spent a fortune in the late 1800's promoting their nonsense. Russell had up to 4,000 newspapers publishing his sermons at 1 point. And still, their sect is half the size of the LDS.

In any modern cult it usually ends up with it being uncovered that it was all about getting the leader access to young women or children to have sex with. Lucky for Russell he lived in the age before mass communication and cameras. We have no reason to believe JW was any different. I mean.... Rutherford, who was Russell's successor famously used JW funds to live a life of jet set luxury, travel around Europe and bang hookers. He did live in an age of mass-communication and cameras and was caught with his pants down. I'm not saying we know Russell did similar things. But Russell was instrumental in rising Rutherford to that position. They may have had shared interests.

 

[Lion IRC]

All this talk about scientific advances and technology underscores the whole basis of creationism.
It takes the creative mind of a personal Being to intentionally bring about something new.

Sure, if you want to keep on with the science versus religion canard fair enough. But scientists setting their minds to toward the material world is something of a backhanded compliment to Creationism.

Do you have an argument to back this up with? All I see here is a statement. Statements are not conclusions.

Which part do you (and Keith&Co and atrib) find controversial?
Mind?
Intentionality?
Creativity?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you have an argument to back this up with? All I see here is a statement. Statements are not conclusions.

Which part do you (and Keith&Co and atrib) find controversial?
Mind?
Intentionality?
Creativity?

Why does it take a creative mind of a personal being to bring about something new? What do you mean by personal being?

BTW, this is a logical fallacy of category. Whether something is new or not depends to a large extent about other people experience of it and how we label it. When you drop a milk cartoon on the floor and it bursts it will take a form unique in history. It is a new thing. We live in a world of quantum fluctuation. Nature creates and destroys an almost infinite array of new things every fraction of a second.

You may want to rephrase that statement. What kind of new thing do you mean? It's not clear.

I should add that when theists make their arguments it's always obvious they haven't thought it through. Because they always, without fail, struggle with expressing themselves clearly. "Religiony" and "theist speak" encourage and accept vague and meaningless language as if it was meaningful. So I guess they don't get practice.

In the scientific or philosophical world you need to know exactly what you're talking about, or you will get called on your bullshit. The worst insult against an educated person is wasting their time by opening your mouth too early. Think it through more!

I wish religious people would Hitchslap their priests when they say something stupid. I think that would make the world a better place.

 

[none]

I say the mind, a mind, and minds is definitely an area of ambiguity

 

[wilson]

So, I guess these books were written by blithering illiterates - right?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279

That is an excellent example. Lots of people have faith in that whites were superior to other races. So they studied it. Initially they found what they were looking for. As humans tend to do. But over time peer-review started tearing the works to pieces. This is how science works. Science knew that race biology was complete bollocks well before the Nazi party took power in Germany. If people had been better educated, we might have been able to avoid WW2.

Christianity didn't save Germany from Nazism. Hitler was a Catholic, and all Germans except the communists were Christian. The church had taught people that faith is more important than knowledge. So they just applied that to race theory as well. That's a fact. You can't argue against htat.

No, faith is not an armour against evil. History teaches us that faith provides a wide open doorway for evil people to manipulate good people through.

There's Christians who share my view. Kierkegaard said that a belief that isn't questioned is worthless. If you are guided by faith, you have no idea if you are a tool of evil or not. But if you are guided by doubt and skepticism you're much less likely to get suckered in by charlatans.

And a good way to avoid getting suckered in, is to avoid anybody who says faith is a virtue. If they say that they might just be a person who is trying to fool you. And Kierkegaard isn't just any dude. He was, without a doubt, the smartest Christian who have ever lived.

Then how come it works so well for us?
Even you are unable to break through our armor of faith, despite your best efforts. Nobody you know can do it.

NONE of those people you mentioned were Christians, despite their claims!
You are proving that yourself by looking at what they DID!
“. . .By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

It was Christ who said:
“. . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.  Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name (Christian), and expel demons in your name (Christian), and perform many powerful works in your name (Christian)?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)
And..............
Why are you running all over the place?
You wrote:

"I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil."

That is nonsense!
The point is that those books were written by educated people. The Nazi movement was loaded with educated people. So was the communist movement.
The Ku Kluxers are not exactly illiterate.
Look at what's happening in academia:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/cult...imes-movement-for-pedophile-rights-marches-on

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fears-grow-over-academic-efforts-normalize-pedophilia

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...erson-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/09/23/is-pedophilia-next-n2055868

Even from the government:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5007E38AAE965021FF565007E38AAE96502&FORM=VIRE
Did you say: "I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil?"
Based on what?
And, not that you know the truth, what do you say now?

No, education is no defense against evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

Which part do you (and Keith&Co and atrib) find controversial?
Mind?
Intentionality?
Creativity?

Why does it take a creative mind of a personal being to bring about something new?

I said "intentionally". #intellectual_property
A Shakespearean sonnet might spontaneously write itself or evolve by random chance monkeys typing stuff.
But that's more unbelievable than deliberate creationism.

What do you mean by personal being?

Look in a mirror.
Say those exact same words.
Now meditate on who exactly is asking that question

BTW, this is a logical fallacy of category.

No it isn't.

Whether something is new or not depends to a large extent about other people experience of it and how we label it.

Nope. If a 'thing' happens which has never happened before, we can use the word new irrespective of whether or not there are 'observers'. I can live on a desert island and know about the ontological category - new, novel, original, with or without the existence of other inhabitants being there to concur.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies think about your own claim that a thing might not be 'new' because/if there is an absence of witnesses we don't know about who might have observed it previously. (Argument from silence)

Let's invalidate all the legal patents in the world because, you know, someone else may have invented it first.

...You may want to rephrase that statement. What kind of new thing do you mean? It's not clear.

Nope. New means new.
You're quibbling.

I should add that when theists make their arguments it's always obvious they haven't thought it through.

Yadda yadda.
All theists everywhere always say the same thing all the time.
Logical fallacy pot kettle.

Because they always, without fail, struggle with expressing themselves clearly. "Religiony" and "theist speak" encourage and accept vague and meaningless language as if it was meaningful. So I guess they don't get practice.

You're just arguing from semantic stubbornness.
You don't like the implications of words like "new" and "mind".

In the scientific or philosophical world you need to know exactly what you're talking about, or you will get called on your bullshit.

Um...you're the one claiming not to understand what words mean.

...I wish religious people would Hitchslap their priests when they say something stupid. I think that would make the world a better place.

Unsupported personal opinion noted.

 

[none]

Sure education reduces evil
If you educate the public you can keep them safe
Problem is the JW organization won't come clean with their congregations and most definitely not law enforcement
The JW's are the same organization that wrote a love letter to the Nazis

 

[blastula]

Why does it take a creative mind of a personal being to bring about something new?

I said "intentionally". #intellectual_property

Yeah, you stated a tautology.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which part do you (and Keith&Co and atrib) find controversial?
Mind?
Intentionality?
Creativity?

Takes. That would be the most troublesome word in the claim.

It would require a substantial investment in research in order to eliminate all other possibilities and leave this as the conclusion.
Or, one could just carefully define terms and conditions so that any an all evidence automatically supports one's position or must be discarded. You know, the creationist approach to pretend-science.

 

[Elixir]

... one could just carefully define terms and conditions so that any an all evidence automatically supports one's position or must be discarded. You know, the creationist approach to pretend-science.

Yup. I don't mind the ones who don't realize they're doing that so much. But the ones who DO know it and loudly stand by the notion that it's a "rational" approach to life, make me want to slap 'em silly.

E.g. AiG' statement of "faith":

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the [AiG interpretation of the] scriptural record."