--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d 145 Replies latest jw friends

  • Borgia
    Borgia

    Gordon,

    Taking a math EXAM means: 1) he has been training for that, 2) he has had help to gain confidence in solving such riddles.

    Life is not in any way a math EXAM although you have to make the math so once in a while!

    In the analogy, it is not about hating me as a father, but failing to see reasonable proof for my existence. Even if I would not have been present in his life, he knows he must have had a father, at least a bloke of some age who had his sperm hooked up with his mothers egg. (Although in todays day and age not necessarily has to be the case, but you´ll get the picture).

    The simple fact of him existing, means he has a father. Period. Does that mean he knows his father, or can relate and even communicate with his father?He may miss not particularly a father type in his life but may miss the very person his biological father had been. This may even be furthered by family and friends around him who had known his father and telling him great stories. So, in a sense, he is able to know about him but never experience him.

    The example I gave, was meant to clarify relation and communication. Not to go into hypothetical issues I may never experience and I cannot relate to now. I will cross that bridge when I have to.

    So, we started out with real communication (touch, words, looks) that my son can understand. If I say something he is incapable of hearing or understanding I am not in communication with him. In order to become in communication with him I need to reach his level. New thoughts and vocabulary has to be explained by context, example, etc. Anything that I need to say that is not meant for him to hear is either said in his absence or in such a way he cannot make head nor tail of it (understanding)

    In the coming years I will see my son gradually grow in understanding, reason, feeling and appreciation. So, he has his own responsibilities. But....if I want to maintain a relationship with him, I will need to work on knowing his world and I need to demonstrate that I am interested and that I am in the know. I am the more mature one, the more experienced one. So, it is reasonable that I take the lead in maintaining that relationship. I expect my role to change over time....from extra diaper to facilitator to counselor to just a man....But in all of these roles: What is the secret of success?

    Let me put this in big: C O M M U N I C A T I O N O N H I S L E V E L

    And that, amigo, is missing in the relationship with whatever entity is entitled to this word: God.

    The silence, the difficulty of getting in touch, the lack of proof of his presence all contribute to the notion that he is unknown and remains an unknown to the vast majority of mankind. (of course I did not provide an exhaustive list)

    Statesmen lay garlands at monuments to honor the unknown soldier. The soldier has a history, but unknown. He died somewhere along the line of history, his real face and personality, his deeds, thoughts, his passion and desires lost in time and space, vanished. Unable to communicate with the present living beings.

    So, here´s to the gods.

    Cheers

    Borgia

  • gordon d
    gordon d

    Hi Borgia,
    I'm confused.... me and my damn analogies! Will I ever learn???

    Please help me understand where I'm screwing up:

    What did you think each analogy was describing?

    Who or what did you think the keys were representing?

    Any other suggestion on my attempts to express an abstract concept.... Please???

    Thanks my friend,
    Gordon

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Gordon

    My point is that you probably can prove that erotic love exists, at the very least it is a chemical reaction within our bodies and could be detected and possibly even quantified. Love is not some extraordinary claim in the way that the existence of gods is an extraordinary claim, and so doesn't need empirical evidence. I apologize for not playing the game but just for you, atheism isn't about 'proving' god doesn't exist and just for the record I would admit that there is the possibility that you are right and I am wrong. The qualifier of course is that I could also be wrong about fairies and unicorns too.

    As for you 'proof' love isn't a scientific fact, well if your loved one doesn't make your heart beat faster then I'm sorry to say it probably isn't love! You and your loved one have my sympathy.

  • gordon d
    gordon d

    Hi Caedes....

    I think we have our first winner!

    Your impathetic cognizance, humilty and your aquiescent nature have placed you among the "true" illuminatti of this forum... (cool... more big words!)

    I know that you didn't want to play the game... but you did, anyway!

    As for your 'proof' love isn't a scientific fact, well if your loved one doesn't make your heart beat faster then I'm sorry to say it probably isn't love!

    Perhaps my loved one is nothing more than a cup of coffee!

    P.S... Maybe this will give you some additional hope: Thanks for the pic, Sparkplug!

  • Scully
    Scully
    I shouldn't be surprised that they will avoid the picking up of their gauntlet and attempting to support their views.

    Pardon moi? You have got to be joking, gordon. What were the 10+ replies that I have personally posted to this thread already?? Chopped liver?? Oh yeah, I almost forgot... they weren't "stupid" enough for you to make your point, so I guess that automatically disqualifies them. Sorry for refusing to "dumb down" for you and your "god", but I believe that doing so would diminish the quality of this discussion, not to mention insult my intelligence and yours and everyone else's who cares to read it.

    The critic of my points keep crying the same tired song... "We want proof"

    And you keep crying the same tired song.... "It's my experience and you have to accept it and seek it out for yourselves!"

    The gauntlet was cast and it is obvious that some people will NOT believe in even the remotest possibility of something that have not seen, read about in some other person's book, or that cannot be grasped by their vast intelligence.

    Now you're just getting nasty and sarcastic. Can you give anyone a GOOD reason why "some people" SHOULD "believe in even the remotest possibility of something that have not seen, read about in some other person's book, or that cannot be grasped by their vast intelligence"? FYI: If you believe that this marvellous thing happened to you and changed you, I can honestly say that I "believe" that you are sincere in holding that belief, and that you hold that belief with the best of intentions. Why do you, though, want me to go further than that and require that I believe it too? That would actually force me to ignore the primary rule of psychiatric nursing: "Thou shalt not enter into the patient's delusions".

    Really, gordon, I want to know: Why do you feel so strongly that I should seek out that experience for myself? What if I never have that experience myself, and I live for another 40 or 50 years and NEVER experience what you believe you have experienced? Why should I waste my time and energy seeking something that is highly improbable for me to experience, when I could spend the next 40 or 50 years of my life doing something positive and constructive, rather than (as Abaddon so beautifully put it) "micturating away my sole go at being"?

    Personally, I wish you would just accept that not everyone is going to believe the same thing as you do, just as I accept that you sincerely believe what you believe and have personal and personally valid reasons for doing so. We all have that right to believe or not believe. We have the right to require evidence or not. We all have the same freedom to worship or not as our conscience permits. When you finally "get" that, and stop trying to compel people to have blind faith when they do not wish to do so, then perhaps I can participate further in this conversation. I'm willing to agree to disagree. I'm willing to accept that you are sincere in your beliefs. Are you willing to drop the intolerance and do the same for atheists?

  • gordon d
    gordon d

    Scully,
    I thought you had made your point (A very Good one I might ad) and moved past the futility of this debate.
    In defense of my post... It's called "Baiting"
    There are no guidelines of etiquette for the archaic practice of baiting..... 'cause it's a "GUY"-thang!

    Please note that I did not resort to the "Bock--Bock" method!

    P.S. Is there some kind of emoticon that I could use for "sarcastic remark"?... it might save a lot of hurt feelings.

  • Scully
    Scully
    I thought you had made your point (A very Good one I might ad) and moved past the futility of this debate.

    So you admit that this debate and your challenge to atheists is futile. Good. We're getting somewhere.

    In defense of my post... It's called "Baiting"
    There are no guidelines of etiquette for the archaic practice of baiting..... 'cause it's a "GUY"-thang!

    So you admit that you're behaving like a troll. Fair enough. I imagine that in short order your posting privileges will be restricted accordingly,based on the following Posting Guidelines:

    Posting Guidelines
    To ensure all users feel safe and keen to participate, please avoid:

    1. Insulting, threatening or provoking language
    2. Inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic.
    Please note that I did not resort to the "Bock--Bock" method!

    Well, that's open to debate, considering your original post and its poorly constructed Easter Egg analogy, and referring to certain JWD atheists as "chickens".

    P.S. Is there some kind of emoticon that I could use for "sarcastic remark"?... it might save a lot of hurt feelings.

    Try this one: or this one:

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Gordon,

    The critic of my points keep crying the same tired song... "We want proof"

    It is no so much a 'tired' song as a sinful one to religionists - for obvious reasons as it makes tends to paint their confident adherence to the unseen a more worrying color. However, that this song might sound tired to you does not stop it being a basic requirement in order for you to understand the point of view of those that you condemn, a requirement that you have been singularly unable to meet.

    So why should we believe your version of 'God' as opposed to that of the Australian Aborigine, or Eric Von Damhimagain?

    HS

  • Asheron
    Asheron

    Hey G'man

    One more point. We keep bringing up the matter of tangible proof, emperical data, etc.... We've already established that this cannot be the appropriate measuring stick for the proof of God to openminded people.

    We did???? Are you are admiting that you have no proof of the existance of God? If not tangible proof or evidence, what measuring stick should we use to test the God theory to an open minded person??

    And dont go tryin to start up another debate about another subject. We aint done wit dis one, I rekon!

    Asheron

  • sass_my_frass
    sass_my_frass

    Not everybody is interested in the eggs. I'm one of the adults who put the eggs there to keep the kids quiet for half an hour (or if you want a more technicolour version, to put a little magic and mystery in their lives). Whatever floats your boat mate.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit