Good night and thank you, Maeve.
Pelican
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
adamah
Viviane said-
It makes sense to decide when you have exhausted all reasonable efforts to get as much reliable information as possible.
Generally that's true, and I think I mentioned recently when I said the important point is that the "absense of evidence is NOT evidence" claim is valid ONLY if a comprehensive search has been conducted, eg if I say there's a pink elephant in my living room, you can safely conclude I am drunk or hallucinating by simply looking in the living room.
But your suggestion only raises the question:
How is a believer expected to obtain information from God, explaining to us WHY God failed to intercede on the tsunami of 2004?
Does God respect someone who submits a request via "Freedom of Information Act" paperwork, such that humans are able to DEMAND God give them an answer as to why?
That's the entire POINT of the story of Job, since Job asked God why he was suffering, and God refused to provide him with an answer, instead delivering his legendary, "Where were you when I created the Earth" barrage of questions to reinforce the point that humans don't have any RIGHT to know jack on the topic of why bad things happen to even the most-righteous.
That message was designed to supplement the "bog standard" prior theodicy, which held that God punishes evil-doers for their sins or those of their fathers (which BTW, is the entire premise by which Jesus could supposedly heal by being granted the authority to foregive humans of their sins). So the great theodicical addition provided in the story of Job is that only God knows for sure the REAL reason why someone is suffering, and others (like his 'friends') cannot assume they know the answer. In fact, his 'friends' got a stern warning at the end of the tale, so the story likely served as a polemic judgmental types who assumed God was punishing someone. Remember, it must've been a problem or there'd be no need to include the scripture in Leviticus 19:14 prohibiting playing pranks on the disabled:
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God: I am Jehovah.
Adam
-
PelicanBeach
If believers are faulted for believing in the unseen are atheists to be credited for believing the unseen does not exist?
Which side can be said to have an open mind?
-
Viviane
Do you believe that the belief in a superior being who exists outside of our physical boundaries is a danger to mankind?
Danger in what sense? I don't understand what you are asking.
Do you believe there is nothing that exists outside of the physical that we can see and touch?
Your question is too vague. Can you elaborate?
Are you certain about your beliefs?
Yes.
-
jgnat
So which ego goes first, flamegrilled? I offer an alternative analogy and you flame it. Argumentative, no attempt at dialogue.
-
zound
When atheists are comfortable in their skin they do not need to prove believers wrong, they simply don't care. What is this based on? Personal experience.
I care that believers are wrong. Because their beliefs lead to harming the innocent and prevent human progress. Am I not a true atheist pelican brief?
-
Viviane
If we agree that it's reasonable to reserve making a decision to accept a belief until enough compelling information is presented, then it makes NO sense to criticize theists for claiming, "God's ways are mysterious to us, and there are some answers to questions that we just don't know", since the Bible itself tells them they don't have enough knowledge! Hence, the theist's refusal and/or inability to answer is NOT a sign of irrationality, but it's actually a step in the right direction, the ONLY rational response they could provide!
Or we could help them to analyze why they've accepted the Bible as a foundation in the first place and how they treat it with special pleading every day and wouldn't treat any other source like that and that it IS irrational, an irrationality built on an irrationality.
Generally that's true, and I think I mentioned recently when I said the important point is that the "absense of evidence is NOT evidence" claim is valid ONLY if a comprehensive search has been conducted, eg if I say there's a pink elephant in my living room, you can safely conclude I am drunk or hallucinating by simply looking in the living room.
Or that you have a porcelein pink elephant on a shelf :)
But your suggestion only raises the question:
How is a believer expected to obtain information from God, explaining to us WHY God failed to intercede on the tsunami of 2004?
Oh, it's not JUST doing that, it's casting in sharp relief the real underlying question, WHY is there absolutely no way to get information and why are any potential reason why so uncomfortable?
It's an invitation to dig, not to stop thinking. That's the only way come up with any potential answer to anything, to keep asking questions. Everything you wrote suggest stopping thinking is the rational answer, and that's the real wrong answer.
-
Viviane
If believers are faulted for believing in the unseen are atheists to be credited for believing the unseen does not exist?
Which side can be said to have an open mind?
Who is faulting a believer for believing? Certainly not I....
In any event. I am 100% open to convincing evidence of God's existence. So far I haven't seen any.
Are you 100% open to doubting the existence of God? Have you truly critically looked at why you believe in God and why others don't and given them equal opportunity?
If you truthfully answer that, then you'll have your answer.
-
Simon
If we agree that it's reasonable to reserve making a decision to accept a belief until enough compelling information is presented, then it makes NO sense to criticize theists for claiming, "God's ways are mysterious to us, and there are some answers to questions that we just don't know", since the Bible itself tells them they don't have enough knowledge! Hence, the theist's refusal and/or inability to answer is NOT a sign of irrationality, but it's actually a step in the right direction, the ONLY rational response they could provide!
Sorry, I do not accept that theists ever act or give answers for rational reasons and I did not agree with that. Religious belief is the ultimate manifestation of irrationality. From the Wikipedia definition:
It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.
Irrational behaviors of individuals include taking offense or becoming angry about a situation that has not yet occurred, expressing emotions exaggeratedly (such as crying hysterically), maintaining unrealistic expectations, engaging in irresponsible conduct such as problem intoxication, disorganization, or extravagance, and falling victim to confidence tricks. People with a mental illness like schizophrenia may exhibit irrational paranoia.
There is no logical basis for their belief at all. Really, no reason to come up with the beliefs other than 'someone told them to me'. That seems to be the mark of all theist belief whereas atheism and science is the discovery of understanding, not the invention of it. If lost, it would be rediscovered. Theism if it dies is lost and a different version entirely invented. There is a reason that there are thousands of different gods - they are so easy to create and so obviously creations and not discoveries.
Exaggerated emotions? Check ... religious people are over-joyous and over-angry. Unrealistic expectations? Like living forever? Like the creator of the cosmos being completely focused on their bedroom activities and talking directly to them while hundreds of thousands elsewhere die horrible deaths? Check.
Confidence tricks would include organized religion - the perfect vehicle to separate a believer from their money. We can all, I'm sure, come up with examples of very religious people who are simply demonstrating mental illness. So check, check, check.
Does it 'make no sense' to criticise theist belief? Hell no! I say the only rational and human thing to do is to redicule it mercilessly and show it up for what it is - a con, a massive trick foistered on people, used over and over throughout history to captivate, control and subdue the weak minded and vulnerable and to create armies when raw body count was a good measure of military success. Really, redicule is the very least that it deserves.
That's why theists refuse to answer the question Cofty demands of them; they remain mute, claiming the "we don't have a need to know" defense (as offered in Job), analogies that rely on our inability to comprehend the reason (the dog/owner analogy), or even the "benign neglect" defense (i.e. experiencing some short-term loss to serve some unknown greater good, where God will make it even-better than before for everyone (as he did with Job, giving his twice as much). The "God is punishing us for some sin" is still a fave with Westboro Baptist church types...
Some chose to remain mute, not because of any logical reasoning but because they recognise the weakness of their arguments and how their claims sound to anyone who doesn't share their delusion. All they have going for them is that they are less obviously crazy than the real zealots. Not really a badge of honor.
Do they think understanding is going to increase as time goes on? Do they actually believe the false promises of revelations to come that will explain everything to them?
So far religious 'understanding' has gone backwards with time. As science erodes belief then religion retreats ever further. There are no revelations that ever benefit the religious, only those that hammer more nails into the rotten coffin that it festers in.
If their faith had any basis in reality then it would stand up to scrutiny and to redicule. The fact that it caves in like a wet cardboard box at the slightest questioning shows it for what it is - vacuous nonsense, nothing more.
-
Simon
Viviane: spot on - theists are the ones with closed minds.
A theist with an open mind? An ex-theist. Once your make the mental leap to the indoctrinated god possibly not being real then you see the mountain of evidence against it possibly being true.