by B_Deserter 111 Replies latest jw experiences
Hello Deputy Dog:
I've read some of your comments here with interest.
This subject of atheism based on "evidence" versus theism/creationism happens to be one of my chief interests.
Personally, I make a great distinction between theism and religion. I even make a distinction between Christianity and religion.
I'd be interested to know more about some of your personal beliefs if you would post me at: [email protected]
~Binadub (aka Ros)
>> As a result I am leaving the board
Thank Jebus.
.... Oh wait, he's still spouting nonsense. Nevermind.
"The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes." -- Dave Barry, humorist
"Atheism does not assert no God. The Atheist. . . . says 'I know not what you mean by God.' . . . The Bible God I deny; the Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to say there is no God as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define God to me." -- Charles Bradlaugh
"By predicating a First Cause [God, the uncaused Cause], the theist removes the mystery a stage further back. . . . Such a belief is a logical absurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery. . . . Moreover if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unkown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks, 1933
"To understand why I jumped from the Mormon wagon train requires an understanding of what Mormons are and how they think. . . They really aren't much different from millions of poor, guilt-ridden souls who, throughout the march of human history, have hitched their hopes to mass movements of one sort or another. [Quoting Eric Hoffer:] 'A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of an individual existence.' . . . Once I realize this, it wasn't much of a leap out of religion altogether." -- Steve Benson
B_D
For example, if I were to flip a coin, and then hold it in the palm of my hand, would you believe that the heads side is up? would you believe that the tails side is up? If you answered No to both of those questions, I rest my case.
That doesn't work. From where I stand it's a two headed coin, and you see a coin with two tails. Claiming neutrality is like trying to say that it landed standing on edge.
Deputy dog wrote
" It's that as an atheist you start with the presupposition that "there is no God""
This doesn't represent my journey. Atheists don't start out as believers, anymore then migrated people from the middle east come here and are suddenly born "Christian" while being raised Muslim.
Clearly, one is educated at first, and that is the start. Atheists have the advantage of saying "Where is god?"
I mean, seriously, where is he?
We can talk about all kinds of interesting scientific data and how to interpret that, but in the end, theists do need to interpret that postively for their point of view.
Atheists don't interpret anything at all. They can discuss certain subjects related to theology and dogma dispassionatly, as they really don't have to prove anything.
Where is god? Why does he need you theists to do his talking for him?
That doesn't work. From where I stand it's a two headed coin, and you see a coin with two tails. Claiming neutrality is like trying to say that it landed standing on edge.
What I'm asking is how you could have an active belief in either heads or tails. Yes, people GUESS whether it's heads or tails, but it's not based upon anything they know. It's a guess, and they will accept it if it turns out to be the opposite of what they've guessed. What I'm talking about is if you truly, sincerely believe, for example, that the coin has landed heads side up. Based on the lack of evidence, I would reject your claim that it is heads, but not the possibility that it could be. Likewise, I could reject the belief that it landed tails side up due to the same lack of evidence. It all boils down to the fact that "I don't believe X" is not the same as "X cannot be true."
ATJ
This doesn't represent my journey. Atheists don't start out as believers, anymore then migrated people from the middle east come here and are suddenly born "Christian" while being raised Muslim.
I never said atheist "start out as believers". But, B_D may have given you that impression with this comment:
Atheists come from every religion and every denomination, not just the Witnesses, and the idea that no one can read the Bible without becoming convinced its the word of God is, pardon my bluntness, quite arrogant I think.
B_D
What I'm asking is how you could have an active belief in either heads or tails. Yes, people GUESS whether it's heads or tails, but it's not based upon anything they know. It's a guess, and they will accept it if it turns out to be the opposite of what they've guessed. What I'm talking about is if you truly, sincerely believe, for example, that the coin has landed heads side up. Based on the lack of evidence, I would reject your claim that it is heads, but not the possibility that it could be. Likewise, I could reject the belief that it landed tails side up due to the same lack of evidence. It all boils down to the fact that "I don't believe X" is not the same as "X cannot be true."
Do you know what a presupposition is? Do you think that your "belief" about God, affects how you live your life?
If you're all willing to take this little trip down memory lane with me, I ask you to time travel back to the year 1800.
It's the dead of winter and snow is falling.
Do you recognize this familiar shape?:
This is a snowflake. Notice how beautiful and intricate it is. And this is only 1 of an immense number of possible snowflakes. The designs and complexity are staggering.
What is the possibility of such a shape occuring by random chance? A typical snowflake has 10^18 water molecules. The probability of each water molecule to randomly arrange itself into the above shape, would be 10^324 (value taken from the Institute of Intelligent Design). The probability of such an event is so low, that it is nearly impossible for it to ever happen in our universe for billions of years.
We're going to stand in and watch a conversation between a scientist and a religious man back in 1800 on the question of how are snowflakes created.
Religious Man: "There is clearly only one possible answer. Given the improbability of a snowflake forming by random chance, god must have created this snowflake."
Scientist: "Surely there must be another plausible reason. You don't need to have god create each individual snowflake. I believe it is entirely possible that there is a natural process that accounts for the creation of this snowflake. I'm going to submit this as my Crystal Forming Hypothesis."
Religious Man: "Crystal Forming Hypothesis? I ask you to PROVE that crystal forming hypothesis can possibly account for the staggering complexity in a snowflake, no, it is impossible! God must have created it. Can you not simply see that god has created it merely by looking at it? It is obvious that such a thing cannot happen by blind random chance."
Scientist: "Unfortunately I cannot at this point prove it. If only we could create a snowflake in a laboratory, I would be able to prove the Crystal Forming Hypothesis. I submit that there must be a natural process that can form these beautiful complex crystals, but unfortunately at this time I cannot prove it. The best I can do is provide an idea for how such a thing might happen."
Religious Man: "Why should I believe in your Crystal Forming Hypothesis? Your presenting evidence to support your claim would be very compelling. This all ties to burden of proof. If you are the one claiming that there is something out there that nobody else can confirm and verify, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Those who believe in the "Crystal Forming Hypothesis" are the ones making the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon them to support their position. My position is simply 'I don't believe you, prove it.' Besides, even if you were able to create a snowflake in a lab, it would still require a HUMAN to organize and create the experiment, it would still require an 'intelligence' to create the snowflake. You would only prove my point that it requires an intelligent agent to create snowflakes."
Scientist: "This is a fair point you make. While I cannot directly prove it at this time for our science and technology are limited, I believe I am presenting a very educated, consistent, and plausible explanation for how snowflakes can arise naturally, not by random chance, but by employing a process. If you would just take a moment to review my findings, I think you might..."
Religious Man: "NO! I am DONE with this conversation. I do not understand how you can be so BLIND and ARROGANT and LAZY. If you would only just take a moment to LOOK at a snowflake and would stop being so defiant against god, you too could easily see how the creation of a snowflake is ONLY possible through an intelligent creator. JUST LOOK at a snowflake and how complex and beautiful it is! This is god's hand at work. You arrogant scientists believe that such a thing can arise through blind chance!"
Scientist: "Uh, I didn't say blind chance, please stop saying that, if you would just take a look at my findings, you'd see that I'm merely stating that there is a possibly a process that creates crystals..."
Religious Man: "You make me sick. How could you be so blind. How could you put faith in your "Crystal Forming Hypothesis" without being able to prove it in a lab?"
Fast forward 5 years and the first refridgerator is invented. The scientist has an idea. Perhaps this newly available technology will help prove "Cystal Forming Hypothesis" and allow him more insight into how crystals form. The scientist toils away in his lab trying to recreate the circumstances that exist in the clouds. After many years of failed attempts (and poor, shody refridgeration equipment), the scientist creates his FIRST lab-grown snowflake. He writes a peer review paper and many other scientists now jump in to test and verify the hypothesis. Several years pass and "Crystal Forming Theory" is born and now encompases a wide array of different crystals, from ice to salts to diamonds.
The scientist, while on his way out of the lab, bumps into the religious man.
Scientist: "I've done it! Would you believe it! I've done it! I've proved Crystal Forming Theory! A natural process accounts for forming these complex and beautiful structures!"
Religious Man: "Bah, snowflakes? That's so last year. However, have you ever noticed the beauty and complexity of the cell? It's so amazing and clearly is evidence of the majesty of the hand of god, for something as beautiful and complex as a cell could not have arisen by chance!"
Scientist: "Funny that you should mention that... I have a hypothesis for that as well, I call it "Abiogenesis." Blind chance has nothing to do with it. I believe it is entirely possible that there is a natural process that can explain how life arose from non-life. If only we could create a self-replicating organism in the lab... we can't do it now.. but we're working on it..."
Gigaflop,
Welcome to JWN.
I enjoyed your post, above.
-LWT
