Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Thermos aquaticus]

Today it means according to a vast array of specified information predetermining how, when, where life develops.

That doesn't mean anything.

but one way or another, the specified information must be provided somehow. 'random errors' ain't gonna do it

Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said:

"I agree with Darwin's original premise, that life probably developed by a similar mechanism as physics and chemistry before it- which in his day meant a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in"

The laws governing mutations are random with respect to fitness. You want to act like you are not rejecting scientific findings, but you are.

Darwinism predicted the fossil record would smooth out over time, not get increasingly jerky- it's a fundamental prediction of slow steady change thru random mutations, and a fundamental problem that the record did not cooperate

Now you are contradicting yourself again. You have already rejected gradual changes in the fossil record as evidence for evolution.

changing the goalposts with punctuated equilibrium is fine, that's progress- but there is a reason validated predictions are valued in science

We have validated the prediction of a nested hierarchy. You don't value that.

Likewise, you can only hold to that by moving the goalposts and retreating the definition of 'junk' to other poorly understood regions, it used to apply to all non-coding DNA

If you would read my thread on junk DNA you would find that none of what you claim is true.

The Human Genome Is Still Mostly Junk

The first piece of evidence that most of the human genome is junk is that ~90% of the genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. It is because of what we do know about the human genome that leads to the conclusion that most of it is junk.

Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

Absolutely no one is saying that all non-coding DNA is junk. No one. You are beating on a strawman.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just can't quite get through to the godless around here

....I am the one with a "belief system" and proud of it. I see in creation the hand of a genius so I don't assume that genius needs no intelligence. I cannot see complex organisms with specifically coded DNA as having been accidents or flukes because there are just too many beneficial flukes to be accepted as operating in reality.

You guys are suppose to be the ones with the "overwhelming evidence" to undo my faith in an Intelligent Designer.....yet no evidence presented to date comes close to being anything but wishful thinking and educated guessing. Its all very "underwhelming" IMO.

You have no real evidence or else you and your cronies would have presented it. It would have silenced all the criticism....and yet, still there is nothing.

Your "belief system" is no more substantiated than mine.....face it.....you have nothing that can be backed up by anything but imaginative diagrams and assumption.
Aren't you sick of this empty rhetoric? I know I am.....

Present something factual and I will discuss it.....otherwise you will joining your learned colleagues on the ignore list. Sniping is apparently all you lot are capable of....

I have to wonder whether the desperation and character assassination that goes on in these threads might just be pointing to something way down deep in your own subconscious.....like what happens if they are right?

Won't it be fun to find out?

I see a lot of words, but no evidence, or any proof that you're so fond of going on about. God is so obvious, yet you can't demonstrate "his" existence to anyone but yourself?

Your entire argument against science is a double standard, mixed in with a bunch of logical fallacies, sprinkled with some poorly veiled insults.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Absolutely no one is saying that all non-coding DNA is junk. No one. You are beating on a strawman.

Not any more they're not !! that's my point, they were proven wrong beyond most reasonable doubt.

 

[Jose Fly]

You think the only options are 'proof' (which exists in maths, and is used only colloquially in science) and tentative suggestion? That seems a strangely binary world. Black and white when everything appears to be grey.

When I first started debating and having discussions with creationists, I was baffled by what you described above. The more I interacted with them, the more I was like "Why can't they see that there's a lot of space between absolute certainty and knowing nothing at all?" After a bit I decided to do a bit of reading into the psychology of fundamentalism, and one very consistent theme that appeared in most of what I read was that fundamentalists (of all faiths) have a very strong tendency towards black/white thinking and are uncomfortable with nuance. They tend to prefer clear simple concepts because they find them reassuring and comforting. Thinking along the lines of "this is what seems to be true, but there's always the possibility that it could be wrong" fails to provide that comfort.

So I suppose we could be asking creationists to engage in a manner of thinking that they're simply not capable of.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not any more they're not !!

They never did. Scientists have known about functional non-coding DNA since the 1960's. The lac operon is a perfect example. You are simply misrepresenting what scientists are saying.

that's my point, they were proven wrong beyond most reasonable doubt.

Where have scientists been proven wrong with respect to the vast majority of the human genome not containing function tied to DNA sequence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They never did. Scientists have known about functional non-coding DNA since the 1960's. The lac operon is a perfect example. You are simply misrepresenting what scientists are saying.



Where have scientists been proven wrong with respect to the vast majority of the human genome not containing function tied to DNA sequence?

The term "junk DNA" became popular in the 1960s.[36][37] According to T. Ryan Gregory, the nature of junk DNA was first discussed explicitly in 1972 by a genomic biologist, David Comings, who applied the term to all noncoding DNA


for a change, why not try a substantive counter argument instead of constantly simply accusing people of misrepresenting, it's not proving very fruitful

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The term "junk DNA" became popular in the 1960s.[36][37] According to T. Ryan Gregory, the nature of junk DNA was first discussed explicitly in 1972 by a genomic biologist, David Comings, who applied the term to all noncoding DNA

Can you quote Comings as saying that all noncoding DNA is junk? Show us.

 

[Deeje]

I always try to be fair with the things I link to. Not to say I always succeed, but there ya go. Appreciate you taking the time to read it.

I really like your reasonablness LnM....You are the complete opposite to the bombastic bores that usually inhabit these threads.

I actually like when people post links because it gives me a broader scope to explore and to build up my arsenal....

....of dead fish.

We fail ourselves/our kids when we see teachers as people of authority who can't be questioned. But obviously there are ways of questioning.

Indeed. My gripe has always been the way evolution is taught to young and impressionable minds. Its not that I want religion taught in schools...its that I would like the science to be honest with the assumptive nature of its findings. If you have to use the words "might have" or "could have" or "must have" in scientific literature then these should be red flags to anyone reading them.

I commonly find Dawkins good scientifically, and poor philosophically. When he blends the two, the results are...meh. For me, anyway.

I cannot stand to listen to either Dawkins or Coyne...their egos and derisive attitude make me sick. I would love to see the day when they are both brought to their knees by the one that they don't believe exists.

Scientists didn't always overwhelmingly support evolution. Over time, increasing numbers of scientists moved to this position. It was at first ridiculed.

I understand that....but doesn't it also highlight the way science uses ridicule to push its beliefs? Should that ever be necessary in the study of nature and how things work? Why is that such a big part of science, even today?

The person who can disprove evolutionary theory, or substantially change it, or substantially improve it would become both world renowned and (most likely in this day and age) wealthy.

This is nothing more than the frog in the pot scenario IMO. Give people enough time and a good spin and you can sell them anything. In the hallowed halls of academia strut way too many egos vying for acclamation, status and the pay packet that goes with tenure at a university.

Good teachers are born, not made....but even talented teachers can teach rubbish if they believe it.

But it's a long standing set of theories that has had a lot of effort put into disproving it, so it will take substantial evidence that something in the theories is incorrect at this point.

Who is going to accept that substantial evidence when all in attendance will put it down and ridicule the one proposing it? How long did it take the medical profession to acknowledge the fact that 'helicobacter pylori' was responsible for stomach ulcers? The doctor who proposed it was almost laughed out of the profession. It takes guts and time and perseverance to stand up to the opposition. Not all have what it takes.

You think the only options are 'proof' (which exists in maths, and is used only colloquially in science) and tentative suggestion? That seems a strangely binary world. Black and white when everything appears to be grey.

To us believers in an all powerful Creator...there are no annoying grey areas. Everything is so beautifully simple.
Scientists cannot tolerate simplicity...they go to great lengths to learn complexity and a whole new language to describe it....so simplicity looks foreign to them.....makes their schooling look a bit redundant too apparently.

Interestingly, many scientists still work with Newton's law, since it's simpler to work with, and is generally accurate enough.

So it's a good example of what is meant by 'not proven, and not a fact'. Newton's law is less accurate than Einstein's theory. But Newton's law was accurate enough to discover a planet through hypothesis and calculation. There is, I would suppose, a fair chance that Einstein's theory could be disproven at some point. Yet it will hold utility regardless of that. These are not 'tentative suggestions'.

There are things in science that it doesn't really matter how long it takes to verify them, or to experiment with them, they don't impact on the question of the existence of an Intelligent Creator like macro-evolution does.

I believe that an encounter with the Creator himself is needed to convince these ones.....but I am not sure that they would enjoy the end result.

We don't 'have to' do anything, as you yourself are proof of.

Yes I know...but how many people in today's world have the courage of their convictions....how many of them have convictions to begin with? Today's youth basically don't care about anything. (That is generally speaking, lest you jump in with your own children's good example....I know that you are not the average father)
They demonstrate little sense of responsibility and an attitude that they can do whatever they like. If you think that you are nothing more than an animal, and you have no one higher than humans to answer to, what is there to aspire to?

But for many of us, we find reliance on science in terms of explaining the world around us (flawed as science is) and reliance on ourselves in terms of determining morality (flawed as we are) as a better and more honest way of living than relying on religious dogma.

I have never been one to operate by religious dogma....If I cannot find the teaching in the Bible and in my own heart, I will not be moved to follow it. I do however respect the Bible's teachings on a great many subjects....especially in the treatment of my fellow humans, and respect for all life in general. I also have the greatest respect for the one I believe authored our instruction manual and the rules for life that he laid down in it, none of which require a stretch of my intelligence or anything that goes against my grain. It sits very well with me. It may not for others.

Some think religious dogma is the only path to avoiding flaw. I look for evidence of THAT and end up being told I should rely on elders (who are already convinced their religion is true) to interpret the evidence that is before them. Nothing is obvious, in fact many of us find the suggestion that most of it is 'directed' or 'designed' to be completely ridiculous.

Being flawed is being human. The scriptures simply tell us how to deal successfully with the flaws. The "elders" are there to help individuals find the scriptures that deal with their problem. A good elder will never tell you what to do...he will show you what your options are in God's word, and allow you to make your own decisions. He will point out the consequences of each option. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

As one who has studied the Bible in depth for many years, I have to say that it has never failed me in any decision I have ever made. That is the beauty of not relying on your flawed self.

 

[ecco]

My gripe has always been the way evolution is taught to young and impressionable minds.

How is evolution taught to young and impressionable minds?

Toddlers with fundie parents are taken to church on Sundays and Bible Studies on Wednesdays. THAT is indoctrination, as I'm sure you know first hand.

 

[Deeje]

How is evolution taught to young and impressionable minds?

At school by the curriculum, and at home by unbelieving parents. 50% of who we become as adults is dependent on how we are raised.The other 50% comes from the things we deduce as we grow and gather knowledge and learn to think for ourselves. If you close a child's mind, healthy exploration of the values and tenets of those around them is closed along with it. Observation is very valuable as a teaching tool....but it isn't the only one.

As an example, many in the southern states of America still regard black Americans as inferior and do all they can to make them feel ashamed about their skin color as if it somehow makes them inferior intellectually. You are not born hating blacks....you have to be taught to do that.....how many can really overcome that hatred in adulthood? THE KKK is full of those people. Some of them think that they are Christians.

Do you think that people are incapable of making choices as adults? Some can...others cannot lose the mindset that was created for them by others. We need exposure to all points of view in order to make healthy choices.

We are entitled to choose for ourselves what to believe....with or without the blessing of others.

Toddlers with fundie parents are taken to church on Sundays and Bible Studies on Wednesdays. THAT is indoctrination, as I'm sure you know first hand.

To you it might be "indoctrination", but then again if you teach your kids (or allow others to teach them) atheism, how is that any different? You are passing onto your child either by word of mouth or by example what you yourself believe. How is that not also indoctrination? If a child of yours was raised in an atheistic household but then they decided as an adult that their life was empty and meaningless without some spirituality, and that they were having a Bible study to see if that filled a large hole in their life...how would you react? Would you throw a tantrum? Would you want to talk them out of it? Is it any of your business?

Parents have a right and an obligation to teach their children what is acceptable, socially and morally. An abdication of that right does not serve the child's best interests for the simple reason that there is no framework in which to make future decisions. We learn what we live, (regardless of whether it is the right or the wrong thing) because we do not choose our parents. They and their circumstances inevitably influence our early life. But each of us has to make our own choices once we are of age.

I am not a "fundie" but I do believe that the Bible provides the best guidance for life. I have taught my children the same. As adults, they could either stay by those things as they validate them, or go their own way by dismissing them. Its their choice to make, not mine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To you it might be "indoctrination", but then again if you teach your kids (or allow others to teach them) atheism, how is that any different?

We don't have to threaten our children with hell if they ever make the decision not to believe, or engage in repeatedly compounding said beliefs with weekly rituals and recitation, or instruct them to feel ashamed or sinful for their natural urges, or provide them with a rigid, unchangeable set of moral goals that any deviation from will result in ostracization, psychological battery and further threats.

You are passing onto your child either by word of mouth or by example what you yourself believe. How is that not also indoctrination?

If you fail to understand the difference between indoctrination and teaching, that's your problem.

If a child of yours was raised in an atheistic household but then they decided as an adult that their life was empty and meaningless without some spirituality, and that they were having a Bible study to see if that filled a large hole in their life...how would you react? Would you throw a tantrum? Would you want to talk them out of it? Is it any of your business?

We would accept it. What would you do if any of your children wanted to leave the Church?

Parents have a right and an obligation to teach their children what is acceptable, socially and morally. An abdication of that right does not serve the child's best interests for the simple reason that there is no framework in which to make future decisions. We learn what we live, (regardless of whether it is the right or the wrong thing) because we do not choose our parents. They and their circumstances inevitably influence our early life. But each of us has to make our own choices once we are of age.

That's all well and good, but do you have the right to psychologically manipulate your child into accepting a set of axioms that are either not demonstrable or, at worst, outright lies, and enforce this rigid and restrictive way of thinking by way of psychological coercion, intangible threats of hellfire, and familial and societal bullying? Is it moral, in the words of Fulke Greville, to teach your children that they are "Created sick, commanded to be sound"?

No need to answer. The answer is no.

I am not a "fundie" but I do believe that the Bible provides the best guidance for life. I have taught my children the same. As adults, they could either stay by those things as they validate them, or go their own way by dismissing them. Its their choice to make, not mine.

But you yourself acknowledge that what you teach to children has a psychological impact later in life. And when you tell children about the threat of hell, and repeatedly compound the unassailable righteousness of your own way of thinking again and again and again with ritualistic behaviour, how can you honestly say you are enabling your children to have an open mind? I have a friend who was raised Catholic, and although he no longer considers himself to be Catholic he still feels pangs of guilt whenever he has any form of sexual thought about women, which seriously hampers his ability to function in relationships well into his adulthood. Another friend of mine was raised in a strict Muslim family, but slowly transitioned into a more secular, atheist worldview when she went abroad to study. When her parents threatened her that they would abandon her and never communicate with her again unless she returned and took up an arranged marriage, because the culture she grew up in taught her to value family above all else she had no choice but to return to them and her faith, never to see her friends abroad again.

This is the type of thing you see almost exclusively in religious groups, Jehovah's Witnesses included. So, tell me, what do you do to ensure that none of the above happens to your children? What opposing views to the JW church do you present them with and how do you present it?

 

[Deeje]

We don't have to threaten our children with hell if they ever make the decision not to believe, or engage in repeatedly compounding said beliefs with weekly rituals and recitation, or instruct them to feel ashamed or sinful for their natural urges, or provide them with a rigid, unchangeable set of moral goals that any deviation from will result in ostracization, psychological battery and further threats.

If you think that we do any of that then you have no idea what JW's teach their children. We have no hell in our beliefs because the Bible does not teach such a thing. Our God is neither a bully or a tyrant. Sorry to disappoint you.

If you fail to understand the difference between indoctrination and teaching, that's your problem.

The individual parent assumes that responsibility. You think atheist parents can't indoctrinate their kids?

We would accept it. What would you do if any of your children wanted to leave the Church?

Our children are not ours to dictate to as adults. If we have taught them the right principles to live by and they abandon those principles then of course we would be disappointed, but its not our choice. We would hope to keep the lines of communication open and hope that at some future time they may want to come back to their spiritual roots...it happens a lot. The world is not a very happy or trustworthy place. Sometimes you have to lose something to appreciate it.

That's all well and good, but do you have the right to psychologically manipulate your child into accepting a set of axioms that are either not demonstrable or, at worst, outright lies, and enforce this rigid and restrictive way of thinking by way of psychological coercion, intangible threats of hellfire, and familial and societal bullying? Is it moral, in the words of Fulke Greville, to teach your children that they are "Created sick, commanded to be sound"?

We don't do any of that. What on earth are you talking about? God is not a bully...Jesus wasn't a bully and we are not to bully our children. We will discipline them however because we love them. "Created sick but commanded to be sound"? What a load of rot.

No need to answer. The answer is no.

The answer is, you are talking about something you know nothing about...isn't that what you accuse me of doing?
Go to any Kingdom Hall and check out our kids. Ask any school teacher what kind of children JW's have generally speaking?

But you yourself acknowledge that what you teach to children has a psychological impact later in life. And when you tell children about the threat of hell, and repeatedly compound the unassailable righteousness of your own way of thinking again and again and again with ritualistic behaviour, how can you honestly say you are enabling your children to have an open mind?

There's that hell thing again.

We have no rituals either...and yes we want our children to make sound decisions...but you don't need to eat garbage to know it makes you sick. We warn them of the dangers that await them in the world. We would be remiss if we didn't.

This is the type of thing you see almost exclusively in religious groups, Jehovah's Witnesses included. So, tell me, what do you do to ensure that none of the above happens to your children? What opposing views to the JW church do you present them with and how do you present it?

You forget that we engage regularly in our door to door ministry and our children accompany us in this work. Our children have heard all the arguments and have we help them do the research to answer questions for themselves. There are always opposing views but we are not there to argue. If someone is combative we will take our leave, but if honest questions are raised, we will answer them to the best of our knowledge.

We endeavor to raise our children to be responsible adults. We try to teach them to be respectful and to do their best in whatever is asked of them. If they decide to follow in the faith, that is desirable but if not, it is their decision to make.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you think that we do any of that then you have no idea what JW's teach their children. We have no hell in our beliefs because the Bible does not teach such a thing. Our God is neither a bully or a tyrant. Sorry to disappoint you.

I was talking more generally about religion, but can you honestly say you engage in none of the above? Are you denying the Jehovah's Witnesses history of disfellowships and excommunication?

The individual parent assumes that responsibility. You think atheist parents can't indoctrinate their kids?

Of course they can - but religion is a system of indoctrination. I was raised by atheist parents who were open-minded enough to send me to a series of religious schools. Can you say you would do the same?

Our children are not ours to dictate to as adults. If we have taught them the right principles to live by and they abandon those principles then of course we would be disappointed, but its not our choice. We would hope to keep the lines of communication open and hope that at some future time they may want to come back to their spiritual roots...it happens a lot. The world is not a very happy or trustworthy place. Sometimes you have to lose something to appreciate it.

And do you think none of the methods used to teach your children have any impact on their long term decision making or wellbeing?

We don't do any of that. What on earth are you talking about? God is not a bully...Jesus wasn't a bully and we are not to bully our children. We will discipline them however because we love them. "Created sick but commanded to be sound"? What a load of rot.

Is that the most mature response you can muster?

The answer is, you are talking about something you know nothing about...isn't that what you accuse me of doing?

Then educate me. What do you do to ensure the open-mindedness of your children and encourage them to question authority, including the Church?

There's that hell thing again.

We have no rituals either...and yes we want our children to make sound decisions...but you don't need to eat garbage to know it makes you sick. We warn them of the dangers that await them in the world. We would be remiss if we didn't.

And what do you do to foster open-mindedness? What are the dangers and how do you teach them?

You forget that we engage regularly in our door to door ministry and our children accompany us in this work. Our children have heard all the arguments and have we help them do the research to answer questions for themselves. There are always opposing views but we are not there to argue. If someone is combative we will take our leave, but if honest questions are raised, we will answer them to the best of our knowledge.

And do you encourage this questioning in your children? What do you tell your children after the door is closed?

We endeavor to raise our children to be responsible adults. We try to teach them to be respectful and to do their best in whatever is asked of them. If they decide to follow in the faith, that is desirable but if not, it is their decision to make.

And you in no way try to influence that decision?

 

[ecco]

How is evolution taught to young and impressionable minds?

Toddlers with fundie parents are taken to church on Sundays and Bible Studies on Wednesdays. THAT is indoctrination, as I'm sure you know first hand.

At school by the curriculum, and at home by unbelieving parents. 50% of who we become as adults is dependent on how we are raised.The other 50% comes from the things we deduce as we grow and gather knowledge and learn to think for ourselves. If you close a child's mind, healthy exploration of the values and tenets of those around them is closed along with it. Observation is very valuable as a teaching tool....but it isn't the only one.

Grade school children are not taught about evolution. Over 80% of adults in USA believe in a god.

Many religious parents take their children to church and Sunday school. Being taught goddidit does not open young minds to think for themselves.

As an example, many in the southern states of America still regard black Americans as inferior and do all they can to make them feel ashamed about their skin color as if it somehow makes them inferior intellectually. You are not born hating blacks....you have to be taught to do that.....how many can really overcome that hatred in adulthood?

Exactly my point. They are taught racism, mostly by example, from the time they are toddlers. Later schoolroom education about equality falls on deaf ears.

THE KKK is full of those people. Some of them think that they are Christians.

You have no right to decide who or what is or is not a christian. Many - most- christians believe JW is a cult.

Do you think that people are incapable of making choices as adults? Some can...others cannot lose the mindset that was created for them by others. We need exposure to all points of view in order to make healthy choices.

I refer you back to the comments you made regarding disdain for blacks.
The children of racists grow up to be racists because they are indoctrinated from an early age.
The children of fundies grow up to be fundies because they are indoctrinated from an early age.

As you, yourself, pointed out, childhood indoctrination is very difficult to overcome, be it racism or theology.

To you it might be "indoctrination", but then again if you teach your kids (or allow others to teach them) atheism, how is that any different?

I can agree that some people might teach their children that there is no god. But "allow others"?

How many parents take/send their kids off to weekly atheist group meetings compared to how many parents take/send their kids off to weekly religious meetings?

How many parents send their kids off to atheist camps compared to how many parents send their kids off to religious camps?

You are passing onto your child either by word of mouth or by example what you yourself believe. How is that not also indoctrination? If a child of yours was raised in an atheistic household but then they decided as an adult that their life was empty and meaningless without some spirituality, and that they were having a Bible study to see if that filled a large hole in their life...how would you react? Would you throw a tantrum? Would you want to talk them out of it? Is it any of your business?

As a parent, we never made a big deal of religion one way or the other. I was raised the same way. I have two children. One is an atheist, one believes in god.

Parents have a right and an obligation to teach their children what is acceptable, socially and morally. An abdication of that right does not serve the child's best interests for the simple reason that there is no framework in which to make future decisions. We learn what we live, (regardless of whether it is the right or the wrong thing) because we do not choose our parents. They and their circumstances inevitably influence our early life. But each of us has to make our own choices once we are of age.

You are incorrectly assuming that religious morals are better than atheistic morals.

• Atheists do not have Holy Scripture that teaches that slavery is acceptable.
• Atheists do not have Holy Scripture that teaches that women should be subservient to men.
• Atheists do not have Holy Scripture that teaches that there are inferior races.
• Atheists do not have Holy Scripture that teaches that it is acceptable to rape the young female children of fallen enemies.

I am not a "fundie" but I do believe that the Bible provides the best guidance for life. I have taught my children the same. As adults, they could either stay by those things as they validate them, or go their own way by dismissing them. Its their choice to make, not mine.

From everything that has been posted here regarding JW, your above comment is utter BS.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you think that we do any of that then you have no idea what JW's teach their children. We have no hell in our beliefs because the Bible does not teach such a thing. Our God is neither a bully or a tyrant. Sorry to disappoint you.

You do exactly what ImmortalFlame is talking about on this very board!

How many times have you said to people that they're going to regret not believing in the God you believe in? How many times have you threatened people that they will find out this God exists after they die, and they won't be happy about it? Your posts are filled with such threats. Over and over you've done this, thus demonstrating his point to a "T."

The individual parent assumes that responsibility. You think atheist parents can't indoctrinate their kids?



Our children are not ours to dictate to as adults. If we have taught them the right principles to live by and they abandon those principles then of course we would be disappointed, but its not our choice. We would hope to keep the lines of communication open and hope that at some future time they may want to come back to their spiritual roots...it happens a lot. The world is not a very happy or trustworthy place. Sometimes you have to lose something to appreciate it.



We don't do any of that. What on earth are you talking about? God is not a bully...Jesus wasn't a bully and we are not to bully our children. We will discipline them however because we love them. "Created sick but commanded to be sound"? What a load of rot.



The answer is, you are talking about something you know nothing about...isn't that what you accuse me of doing?
Go to any Kingdom Hall and check out our kids. Ask any school teacher what kind of children JW's have generally speaking?



There's that hell thing again.

We have no rituals either...and yes we want our children to make sound decisions...but you don't need to eat garbage to know it makes you sick. We warn them of the dangers that await them in the world. We would be remiss if we didn't.



You forget that we engage regularly in our door to door ministry and our children accompany us in this work. Our children have heard all the arguments and have we help them do the research to answer questions for themselves. There are always opposing views but we are not there to argue. If someone is combative we will take our leave, but if honest questions are raised, we will answer them to the best of our knowledge.

We endeavor to raise our children to be responsible adults. We try to teach them to be respectful and to do their best in whatever is asked of them. If they decide to follow in the faith, that is desirable but if not, it is their decision to make.

 

[Deeje]

Grade school children are not taught about evolution. Over 80% of adults in USA believe in a god.

I am not American.....what applies on planet America doesn't apply to me.

80% of Americans don't represent the rest of the world.

Many religious parents take their children to church and Sunday school. Being taught goddidit does not open young minds to think for themselves.

I think any child who attends the school system has their mind well and truly challenged to think for themselves.....don't you? They are in that environment for the majority of their waking hours 5 days a week.

Exactly my point. They are taught racism, mostly by example, from the time they are toddlers. Later schoolroom education about equality falls on deaf ears.

And you don't think kids exposed to atheism from a young age don't form a mind set too? When kids come of age...they can weigh things up for themselves. Jesus didn't browbeat anyone....he simply told them the truth and allowed the people to make up their own minds...and he led by example in everything he taught.

You have no right to decide who or what is or is not a christian. Many - most- christians believe JW is a cult.

To most first century Jews Jesus was the leader of a cult. Did he care what most Jews believed?
Neither do we.

I refer you back to the comments you made regarding disdain for blacks.
The children of racists grow up to be racists because they are indoctrinated from an early age.
The children of fundies grow up to be fundies because they are indoctrinated from an early age.

As you, yourself, pointed out, childhood indoctrination is very difficult to overcome, be it racism or theology.

Yes, children learn what they live. They bounce off their parents in ways that are hardly noticed.

Spirituality is like a muscle...the more it is used the stronger it gets....conversely the less it is used the weaker it gets until it becomes useless. Statistically, those with a healthy spirituality are happier and healthier than those who profess no belief in anything.

The scripture in Hebrews 6:19 that explains why....
"We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm..."

People need the "hope" of something better to come. It is this "anchor" that stops them drifting into hopeless oblivion. And you would take that away from them...why? What do you get out of destroying on people's hopes? Does misery love company?

I can agree that some people might teach their children that there is no god. But "allow others"?

How many parents take/send their kids off to weekly atheist group meetings compared to how many parents take/send their kids off to weekly religious meetings?

How many parents send their kids off to atheist camps compared to how many parents send their kids off to religious camps?

Do you know how teens and pre-teens occupy their time these days? Most of them are glued to screens offering the most gratuitous violence and graphic bloodshed to entertain their young minds.....a Bible based meeting where moral values are taught, is a good way to offset that influence IMO. I have no knowledge of religious camps....but hey, I will wager that the activities there would be a lot more mentally healthy than the kids who stay at home playing violent video games. Do you have teens in your life?

As a parent, we never made a big deal of religion one way or the other. I was raised the same way. I have two children. One is an atheist, one believes in god.

Must make for some interesting discussions at your house....especially if you display the same hostility towards your believing child as you do to believers here. Do you treat the atheist differently?

You are incorrectly assuming that religious morals are better than atheistic morals.

I am correctly assuming that Bible morals are superior to atheist morals, some of which I would probably not consider to be moral at all. We can all choose what to teach our kids. We have a moral obligation to teach them to be responsible adults, capable of understanding how their choices affect others as well as themselves.

From everything that has been posted here regarding JW, your above comment is utter BS.

And you are an expert no doubt.

You will believe whatever you want to believe.....and that's OK.

 

[gnostic]

I am not American.....what applies on planet America doesn't apply to me.

80% of Americans don't represent the rest of the world.

Really, Deeje?

Oh yes, I know you are like me, an Australian, but what does apply to you, is you belonged to an American cult, namely the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses is about “American” as you get. And not good type of “American”.

 

[gnostic]

To most first century Jews Jesus was the leader of a cult. Did he care what most Jews believed?
Neither do we.

Are you comparing yourself or JW to Jesus?

That’s ego and your hubris talking.

 

[Deeje]

Oh yes, I know you are like me, an Australian, but what does apply to you, is you belonged to an American cult, namely the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses is about “American” as you get. And not good type of “American”.

Wow, were Jesus and his disciples a Middle Eastern cult then? Why would God choose Jerusalem as the base for his temple and why was the 'holy land' the scene for Jesus to appear and for his entire preaching campaign?

Did you know that we had our World Headquarters in Brooklyn NY from the early part of last century? It was the hub of our International brotherhood. Literature was distributed all over the world from that very central location. The International Bible Students Association (as we were known in those early days) was not an American organization....it was a global family that grew exponentially because of the location of our Bible Society. It was also a place from which the Christian message could be disseminated among those who were spiritually minded (which Americans are) but many were sick of the hypocrisy they saw in Christendom. It was a great choice of location for so many reasons. We are not there anymore. We don't need to be. Brooklyn is very happy about that. I believe that Mr Trumps son in law was happy about that too.

Are you comparing yourself or JW to Jesus?

That’s ego and your hubris talking.

LOL...you know I could have sworn that I asked for some substantiated evidence for macro-evolution...and what do I get? More of the same put downs about JW's......sorry mate this is a poor substitute.

What else have you got? This is getting old.

Defend your theory...or can't you?

 

[gnostic]

LOL...you know I could have sworn that I asked for some substantiated evidence for macro-evolution...and what do I get? More of the same put downs about JW's......sorry mate this is a poor substitute.

What else have you got? This is getting old.

Defend your theory...or can't you?

This thread is about “creationists”, not about the theory of evolution.

I am trying to not to derail this thread, something you weren’t able to do when I started a thread on creationist bring evidences for creation of man (Adam).