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

[Dan From Smithville]

I think it has to be, at least to some degree. Otherwise, why are they seemingly so ashamed of it?


I think you're spot on (and you put it very well).

It is the beginnings of an idea that has been coming to life slowly as I read this thread.

As always, I do not care what a person believes, but it is not left simply as a personal belief and believers are compelled to get everyone to their side and change the world to fit their belief. There, I have a problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be honest, it’s been Drs. Meyer & Axe that have “influenced” me.

Other scientists, too.

I would say so. Those two have created a world where they support doctrine by denying the support of it and claiming their arguments are based in science.

 

[tas8831]

That's what the Fly is doing on RF... and his fliers are promoting a lie, or lies.

Cool projection.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is an amazing coincidence. I find certain details don't seem to support that. Obviously, so does everybody questioning it.

Pretty much everyone who isn't a Witness sees it. I can't imagine anyone actually believing that Jehovah's Witnesses are a collective of experts in the biological sciences who independently arrived at the exact same talking points and positions, and it all just happened to line up with Witness doctrine.

Yet that's exactly what the Witnesses here would have us believe.

JWs are universally united in what they believe - not because someone took all of them and shoved them in a machine, and when they came out, their brains were fried.
Think of JWs in this way.
Have you ever noticed that people flood to a particular restaurant / deli / bakery, so that it is always packed, and new people turn up all the time?
Why do these people flood there? They smell the aroma, as they drive by. They popped in, and their taste-buds were ecstatic.
The point - JWs are people who are united in teaching, because they were attracted from all nationalities, races, backgrounds, to what they found to be truth from God's word.
They accepted these, on their own accord - without being coerced - on investigating for themselves.
So the fact that they all believe that there is no supporting evidence for evolution, is based on their own reason.

See? Just a big ol' coincidence!

And now I'm wondering why Witnesses don't appreciate how repeating this absurdity and expecting everyone else to believe it makes them and their faith look. I mean, you can look through this thread and see one person after another basically saying "Of course it's not a coincidence....duh", yet the Witnesses keep insisting that it is.

So I guess I have two questions now....the first remains, why are they so ashamed to acknowledge that their faith influences their views, and now, why can't they see how ridiculous the whole "it's just a coincidence" talking point makes them look?

Given that there are individuals on this forum that are adamant about the authority of scripture negating any challenge, it does seem strange. I still wonder if there is some subliminal acceptance that science has a very compelling argument and that simply dismissing it as against doctrine seems, even to a group of believers, to be less fulfilling than beating it on its own ground. Revealing that openly could be seen as revealing a weak faith to them.

As I noted earlier, it's a tacit admission that appealing to science is far more persuasive than appealing to religious doctrine. That's pretty significant IMO.

 

[nPeace]

What makes you think that Anthony Flew was on your side? I have never seen anything that even hinted that Flew ever stopped accepting the fact of evolution.

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

He may have advocated for an intelligence behind evolution but he still clearly accepted a common ancestor to life.

Are you guessing?
I'd be happy if you could show me that.

 

[nPeace]

Really? You know people with an adequate education that reject evolution not based upon religious beliefs? Can you tell me why they are not to be found on any internet forums, at least not any that I know of.

Really? I doubt you are serious.
Pride and inflated ego, are a bad combination. Hopefully, that's not the contributing factor here.

 

[tas8831]

Please share evidence that these people rejected evolution while being atheist.
I quickly googled it and found no evidence of this at all.

And you won't.
I remember the Flew affair with a grin, for it demonstrated the usual hypocritical, sleazy tactics of religionists quite nicely - they embellished Flew's credentials/relevance - he was suddenly the 'word's greatest atheist', despite the fact that most had never heard of him. They implied that he had rejected evolution. This is not true. He also did not convert to Christianity, but rather considered himself a deist and an ID advocate in the 'purest' sense - that an intelligence (not Jehovah) designed the universe.

It is almost as if ALL these folks have is misrepresentation.

 

[tas8831]

"never claimed" that gradualism "could not occur in theory" (I like that as a catch-all reason to believe in evolution perhaps) or (and now the big one) "did not occur in fact." LOL.

Why LOL? Having trouble understanding what they meant? That seems to be the obvious answer.

 

[tas8831]

Really? I doubt you are serious.
Pride and inflated ego, are a bad combination. Hopefully, that's not the contributing factor here.

This one projects on all topics, it seems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pretty much everyone who isn't a Witness sees it. I can't imagine anyone actually believing that Jehovah's Witnesses are a collective of experts in the biological sciences who independently arrived at the exact same talking points and positions, and it all just happened to line up with Witness doctrine.

Yet that's exactly what the Witnesses here would have us believe.



See? Just a big ol' coincidence!

And now I'm wondering why Witnesses don't appreciate how repeating this absurdity and expecting everyone else to believe it makes them and their faith look. I mean, you can look through this thread and see one person after another basically saying "Of course it's not a coincidence....duh", yet the Witnesses keep insisting that it is.

So I guess I have two questions now....the first remains, why are they so ashamed to acknowledge that their faith influences their views, and now, why can't they see how ridiculous the whole "it's just a coincidence" talking point makes them look?


As I noted earlier, it's a tacit admission that appealing to science is far more persuasive than appealing to religious doctrine. That's pretty significant IMO.

I wonder how many ever thought about evolution before they joined the church? Too bad there is no pre- and post interview data available. I bet that would be a bite of choking size at the deli.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder how many ever thought about evolution before they joined the church? Too bad there is no pre- and post interview data available. I bet that would be a bite of choking size at the deli.

LOL...

And to be fair, I wouldn't doubt that to some degree, there are some JWs who were skeptical of/didn't like evolution prior to becoming a Witness. But all of them? In the exact same way? With the exact same talking points? Yeah right....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This one projects on all topics, it seems.

There are posters that are easy to dismiss as no having no substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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


Are you guessing?
I'd be happy if you could show me that.

Really? Anthony Flew was not thought to be a loon. That right there implies that he accepts gravity. Oh wait, that right there implies that he accepts the even better supported concept of evolution.

By the way, you tried to shift the burden of proof. You made a rather ridiculous statement and then demanded that someone else prove you to be wrong. Naughty naughty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I doubt you are serious.
Pride and inflated ego, are a bad combination. Hopefully, that's not the contributing factor here.

I am very serious. And please, I have not told lies about you. Please don't tell lies about me.

I have been able to support my claims. You . . . not so much.

So once again, why can't one find people with serious objections to the theory of evolution on the internet? We know that you have no serious objections. You only have religious ones.

By the way there is a simple test. The concept of scientific evidence is well defined. It is not "my definition", the definition that I use can be found at numerous websites. The only ones that try to change the definition are dishonest creationists websites. I have yet to meet a creationist that can even allow themselves to understand the concept of scientific evidence. Even when the topic is not evolution they will not allow themselves to understand this because they know it will bite them in the end (in more ways than one).

So why can't we see anyone with non-religious objections to the theory of evolution? Why are JW's particularly heavily into the science denial camp when it comes to this?

 

[nPeace]

Really? Anthony Flew was not thought to be a loon. That right there implies that he accepts gravity. Oh wait, that right there implies that he accepts the even better supported concept of evolution.

By the way, you tried to shift the burden of proof. You made a rather ridiculous statement and then demanded that someone else prove you to be wrong. Naughty naughty.

I know. You hate to be put in a position where you are asked to support things you say, and you know you can't support it.
Flew never suggested, hinted, nor said he believed in the theory of evolution. I have the information. You can find it if you want, but I will not bother, because I don't want to continually put you in that position.
I could imagine how it makes you feel.
I do wish you wouldn't keep repeating the same mistake though, but it seems, you never learn.

 

[nPeace]

I am very serious. And please, I have not told lies about you. Please don't tell lies about me.

I have been able to support my claims. You . . . not so much.

So once again, why can't one find people with serious objections to the theory of evolution on the internet? We know that you have no serious objections. You only have religious ones.

By the way there is a simple test. The concept of scientific evidence is well defined. It is not "my definition", the definition that I use can be found at numerous websites. The only ones that try to change the definition are dishonest creationists websites. I have yet to meet a creationist that can even allow themselves to understand the concept of scientific evidence. Even when the topic is not evolution they will not allow themselves to understand this because they know it will bite them in the end (in more ways than one).

So why can't we see anyone with non-religious objections to the theory of evolution? Why are JW's particularly heavily into the science denial camp when it comes to this?

Let's do an exchange. You first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL...

And to be fair, I wouldn't doubt that to some degree, there are some JWs who were skeptical of/didn't like evolution prior to becoming a Witness. But all of them? In the exact same way? With the exact same talking points? Yeah right....

I would expect there were some. But not all and all having the same level of knowledge and understanding to arrive at the exact same conclusion and expressing it the same way to the point of mirroring doctrine perfectly. It's a Christmas miracle.

What I find odd, is that all that knowledge and understanding seems to have been lost when applied to discussions on this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. You hate to be put in a position where you are asked to support things you say, and you know you can't support it.
Flew never suggested, hinted, nor said he believed in the theory of evolution. I have the information. You can find it if you want, but I will not bother, because I don't want to continually put you in that position.
I could imagine how it makes you feel.
I do wish you wouldn't keep repeating the same mistake though, but it seems, you never learn.

You are not reasoning logically. Anthony Flew never suggested, hint, nor said he "believed" (you really need to learn the proper terminology) in the theory of gravity. Therefore by your "logic" he denies gravity

It is extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence, not the other way around. His problem was with abiogenisis, not with evolution. But since you can never properly support your own claims (and I can understand why) here you go:

Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology | Issue 47 | Philosophy Now

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's do an exchange. You first.

No, once again, you made a claim. I asked for evidence for that claim. I stated that I could not find any people that did not oppose evolution from a scientific point of view. It is not possible for me to show you people that do not exist. Think about it. Meanwhile you made a claim that you need to support for it to be taken seriously.

All that would take to refute my claim is a person that had valid reasons to oppose the theory of evolution. "It goes against my mythical beliefs" is not a valid scientific reason.
Just as a reminder, arguments from ignorance are not valid reasons to oppose an idea. In the world of science support or objections must be evidence based.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not seem to realize that the evidence for evolution is stronger than the evidence for gravity. You would treat anyone that denied gravity as a fool and yet you do not seem to see how that applies to you and your posts. There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science. What is being discussed is how it happened.

Yes I have a bad habit of laughing.. at silly statements. Some people don't like that. Gravity is a ridiculous comparison with evolution.