WHY ?

by RAF 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RAF

  When it comes to believe it’s all about what is believable to you. So this is not a question for believers in God, I mean if you are a believers (you think that there is a God) or an Agnostic (you think that there might be something very unexplainable Yet) The one I want to get into it by giving there reasons are Atheists.

  It feels comfortable to just follow what scientists are saying (it is supportive because they are able to explain some science) but by now about evolution it’s only about concept related to science to explain a possibility, but there is no scientific proof in facts.

  Why is it more believable to you that we are the result of a big bang which would actually comes out of something very tiny full of development codes? I guess from that, that it would still mean that there is something bigger than just that (like believers or agnostic do think).

  So why are you atheist? Is it because:

  1. Scientists are giving into it (but it is there job they will not spit on it and anyway it is interesting to have them working on it) and from most TV show on the matter scientists can’t really state that there is no creator. They are just saying that some things do evaluate and that they have an idea from what (but not from the start for real) … Nothing more … The how from the start is unexplainable there is no explanation about how comes for real? If everything comes out of a big bang it would just means that science/molecule is creative … doesn’t it look like a silent God at least?
  2. Scientists proved that things do evaluate … but but but … they can’t prove that species can evaluate from one to another (unless it’s programmed genetically like for a worm to become butterfly and of course that is something they can prove) … About human for instance there is no real link in between the ape and whatever in between till what is called homo sapiens sapiens … (so all the in between species could have been animals who disappeared) and the major so called discovery to prove the missing link was a fraud …Also there is no real link in between the ape and the fish (they just put it as a possibility – it’s an interesting scientific concept not a proof). Things do evaluate to fit its environment that is sure but not to the point to going from a species to another (no proof about that). That’s when you can’t really believe that a molecule can lead to build a universe unless it’s programmed.
  3. You can’t believe that God does exist because of our situation (means that you feel that if God would exist we wouldn’t be in such situation which allow many to suffer in many ways) to the point that any belief in this matter sounds like bullsh*t. So it must be something else so it’s all science … but what is science then?
  4. Any other reasons … but if it is a scientific reason give us the proof …

  and if I'm wrong about any scientific proof (means no real proof) tell me.
• 

  aniron

  It feels comfortable to just follow what scientists are saying (it is supportive because they are able to explain some science) but by now about evolution it’s only about concept related to science to explain a possibility, but there is no scientific proof in facts .

  Sounds like a religion ?
• 

  nicolaou

  I'll accept the label of Atheist.

  For me, it is not a matter of proof. We've had these debates for years on JWD and no-one can EVER give definative, irrefutable proof that god does not exist. Yet that is what I believe. Does this mean that my 'atheism' is no more than a faith position? Only if you also understand that the amount of faith I need is miniscule! I need about as much faith to believe in the non-existence of god as I do to believe that Elvis Presley is truly dead. The evidence for both is overwhelming but if Elvis turned up on CNN one day, having been dna tested and fingerprinted to prove he was the real article, well then I'd accept these new facts and admit I'd been wrong. Same goes for god, he's only got to show himself.

  Scientists and good science help, they bolster my position as do my own observations and reasoning, all of which can be tested and repeated for all to witness and put to the test. The same cannot be said for 'holy men' and holy books'. These may offer personal experiences, revelations or assertions none of which can be independantly verified. For example, the bible states that Moses personally witnessed god's glory - but I cannot speak to Moses, if he even existed.

  I've learned that human suffering is no argument for god's non-existence, only that it might suggest that if god does exist that he doesn't concern himself with us.
• 

  RAF

  aniron : Sounds like a religion ?

  It is somehow ...

  Nicolau : For me, it is not a matter of proof

  yep ... you believe what suits your understanding and needs (you feel better believing in scientist instead of God).
  
  Spiritually faith only leads to realised how vain we are, and how it is way much interesting to just get the point about what is really important now and for ever ... So in some way even atheist do react the right way spiritually. (Jesus did not condamned Thomas ... he just said it would be best to believe - and it can really be best to believe when you are in some specific situation - but not believing in religious bulls ... of course).
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Ooo, ooo, I'll bite!

  >>You can’t believe that God does exist because of our situation (means that you feel that if God would exist we wouldn’t be in such situation which allow many to suffer in many ways) to the point that any belief in this matter sounds like bullsh*t.

  Yeah, that's what first caught my eye about atheism. The idea that YOU or I would risk our lives to save a child, but God -- who arguably risks nothing and exerts no effort to do so -- refuses to save anybody. The idea of a loving, concerned god is just not believable, given what he allows to go on.

  It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, but we can discern the likelihood of things existing. For instance I'm an a-garden-gnome-ist, too, as well as an a-tooth-fairy-ist. But that position doesn't get challenged as much. Why? Because most people DON'T believe in the tooth fairy, and DO believe in god, though the evidence for either one is roughly the same.

  I don't believe something just because a scientist says it. But I do know that if a guy that studies science for a living makes a statement about science, and I disagree with it, the likelihood is that *I'm* the one that's wrong. That's not "belief", that's playing the odds.

  Dave
• 

  lonelysheep

  I don't believe simply because there is no reason WHY I should believe.
• 

  stevenyc

  Hi there RAF.
  
  Being convinced that there is a God and Devil and therefor the reasons for existence, including all the beauty and all the suffering come from Them, is a bit of a cop-out for me. Passing the buck if you will. When I traced the roots and origins of modern religion I found that they all started out as the bizzar ramblings of tribal mystics explaining the questions of what makes their universe tick. It makes for great anthropological reading into 'how we got here' but I don't see much use for directing my life on the belief that the Earth is the centre of the universe, we all exist in a Gods dream, or if I don't do well I'm coming back as an ant.
  
  We know longer believe that the heart is the centre of emotion or thought, because science has shown otherwise. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of God, but, science is showing that the existence of God is very unlikely.
  
  I feel that the only place left for God is the the realm of metaphysics and hyperbole, both an unprovable and unquestionable space. Unless of cause you've got his telephone number ;) .
  
  steve
• 

  UnConfused

  I can't believe that life started and progressed the way scientists or creationists say.
• 

  RAF

  almostatheiste don't bite me !!!
  lonlysheep the reason of your reason (it's always the reason)
  stevenyc no sorry no phone number ...

  Thanks

  What I can read by now through your posts have nothing to do with scientific proof ... (It's more like you are saying : my reason is my reason ... I feel better this way).
  
  But What still bugs me is telling that science helps to be atheist - it does the reverse to me (most scientists seems to be agnostics) even through your respons you all seems to be agnostics in facts it's like you want to be atheists.

  Eddited to add :

  unconfused do you mean that you are atheist because of that?
• 

  SixofNine

  "but by now about evolution it’s only about concept related to science to explain a possibility, but there is no scientific proof in facts."

  Corinne, this is untrue. Evolution is so well supported by scientific proof that it is considered a fact. Are you confusing "evolution" with "how life on earth started"? These are two different subjects, though they do intersect. It's quite true that no scientist has anything more than a hypothesis of "how life on earth started" (some may indeed have the correct hypothesis, but who knows at this point), but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to just say "see, God did it". There is a tendency to put "god" as the explanation for anything that we have a gap in understood scientifically, ie: the god of the gaps.

  I also think you are putting "lack of belief" in the same catagory as "belief". These are not just two different things, they are two EXTREMELY different things, polar opposites actually.

  I don't believe in "god", because I don't see any evidence for a god. I don't believe the bible was written or inspired by god because a) I don't believe in god, and b) there is no evidence that anything written in the bible is anything other than the writings of men.