WHY ?

by RAF 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RAF

  Sixy,

  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.

  I'm talking about how life and whatever started ...

  It's quite true that no scientist has anything more than a hypothesis of "how life on earth started"

  Thank you (I'm just tired of reading there are proof ... there are none)

  (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".

  That was not the question raised by this thread ... (otherwise I would have put agnostics in the same basket) also any scientific hypostheses can't put God (any kind silent or not) out of the subject.

  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.

  Not me ... I guess that since I believe in something it's not because of a gap ... (but that's a long story) I'm not here to convince anyone, I just want to know there why's (and in my opinion to them it's because God do not answers to their questions or need the way they would like to, or think he should - and from that science is the beginin of an answer about why we do exist).

  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.

  Right that's how I can feel that actually most who feel atheists are actually agnostics (they don't know or they don't care cause it wouldn't bring anything in there lives - which is just normal ...way more normal than trying to believe in something unbelievable to them) but it is not really science which support their belief (or lack of belief in God)

  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.

  So it is not science which lead you to that ... for you too it's a lack of belief or lets say what is unbelievable to you from your experience ...
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  The bible says "god is love". It also tells us he cares about his creation.

  I don't see much evidence of a loving god in the world today, If god exists, he isn't worth believing in anyway, in my view.
• 

  RAF

  fullofdoubtnow

  I don't see much evidence of a loving god in the world today, If god exists, he isn't worth believing in anyway, in my view.

  It's not as if I don't understand what you mean. before to me it was the lack of love that the bible sounded to show that I couldn't stand. that's when I became atheist (I needed to get all belief systeme out of the way) - but right after there were things that couldn't match with the big-bang unless anything have been programmed somehow that when I got interested in numerologie (no real answer there too) I stood agnostic and then got back to the bible but not believe in it to prove it was wrong to my familly ... So I had to read it for real ...

  Those were my feeling before I read the bible by myself ... (and not word for word - because it only leads to missunderstanding - and there is a reason for that i think - I might get into the subject one day - but conceptually it is coherent "to me" - and instead of leading to understand that God is insane - it get to the point I realised that it's all about the fact that we have free will - and without free will we are slaves also without spirituality we are slaves of everything vain) ... bla bla bla ... I mean it's a 2000 pages book ... I began with the Gospel ... and oh surprise all the things that I've been taught sound not what this book is really saying.
• 

  Narkissos

  Bonjour Corinne,

  Nice to see you posting again.

  I am no scientist but I tend to disagree about the "species" thing. Not only important and viable mutations are observed every day (e.g. viruses) but comparative genetics confirm the general notion that the extant diversity of earthly "life" is the (provisional) result of a differentiated yet common evolutionary process.

  I have spent more time with languages than natural sciences, and this may be one reason, fwiw, why evolution seems very "natural" to me. Linguists deal every day with complex and consistent structures (languages) which nobody in particular "designed," which are both irreducible to each other (that's why we need translations) and yet often demonstrably derive from common "ancestors". Of course this cultural analogy can be misleading (comparaison n'est pas raison); it is just one possible explanation why evolution was never counter-intuitive to me.

  But this has little to do, imo, with the notion of "God". Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive. Most believers today (especially in France) accept evolution.

  The "atheist" part in me owes little to natural sciences. Otoh it seems very clear to me that the notion of "God" (capital intended) is the product of a specific cultural history -- from polytheism to monotheism via henotheism -- which itself is the work of chance and necessity (especially political) rather than a transcendent revelation. It is not universal. Entire civilisations have built themselves without this idea. I can appreciate its value but also its limitations. I can accept "God" as a metaphor, or another word for the mystery of being (and speaking/thinking), not as the real solution of this mystery (which btw would reduce the mystery to a mere enigma). I like the mystery better than anything that would "solve" it.
• 

  stevenyc

  RAF, I guess speaking for myself I would say it all comes down to what's practicable. There is a poster here who is a self confessed 'last-thursdayist'. His theology dictates that the entire universe as we know it was created last Thursday. Including the deliberate placing of ancient fossils and old texts and buildings. Now, it is not possible for science to 'PROVE' he is wrong. But, for all practicable purposes, he is.
  
  An agnostic will leave space in his understanding of his universe for the possibility of some God. An atheist leaves no such room. And, even though an atheist cannot disprove the existence of a God, for all practicable reasons, he does.
  
  
  steve
• 

  nicolaou

  yep ... you believe what suits your understanding and needs (you feel better believing in scientist instead of God).

  Nope. Sorry RAF, with all respect you've got me completely wrong. If I believed what suited me I'd believe that all children go to bed feeling loved, secure and with food in their bellies - but I don't believe that. It just isn't possible to choose your own beliefs.

  Yes, Jesus did say to Thomas that it would be better for him to believe without seeing the evidence first. Jesus was wrong.
• 

  RAF

  Salut Narkissos !

  (ça serait cool de se revoir à l'occasion si tu viens sur Paris)
  J'ai toujours un grand plaisir à te lire.

  but it's all about the species ... and the virus as an exemple do not stand just because it is a categorie of species by itself, viruses stays viruses. so any confirmation about it possible extansion for one mollecule to create the universes and all what it includes from a big bang Still needs proof. And yes anyway as you said evolution and theism ae not mutually exclusive (if evolution is programmed then there is still a programmer).

  The reason why I've raised the question "WHY" was to know from what Atheists feel atheist. And you actually fall into the same catégorie - you are Atheist or partly atheist because nothing leads you to be a believer (way before the the fact that you can believe in evolution).

  When you said : "I can appreciate its value but also its limitations."that is when you give me an argument when you join this statement with everything you said from when you talked about language / culture / politic ... but culture is probably the terme which talks about it all.

  Because When you say things (any ancient message) have to be translated cautiously it's true for the bible ... but again not word for word each writter (to be in contexte when they wrote, to suite their contemporay fellows understanding wrote things the way they have to at this time) but by then things can't be change along the time for a book like the bible. And then each translator also put a bit of their culture and own understanding in there (The translation will be related to there understanding). What is left as really understandable is the concept. That's why from the start it is said that Jesus would talk with parables (images).

  And that's why the prophetie whish says that alot will be fooled is just a consequence of reading it word for word and allow people to be fooled by any who wants to mislead on purpose.

  Oddly it's the evidence of the what is wrong which lead to what is right conceptally about what is said in the bible.

  Stevenyc

  I understand what you mean ...

  Nic

  It just isn't possible to choose your own beliefs

  Either you are going too far on this ... Either it means that you only can believe what is beliable to you. So ...
• 

  kid-A

  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?

  >We are not the "result" of the big bang, the Universe is the result of the big bang. We (and all biological lifeforms on the planet) are the result of evolutionary processes over millions of years. Regardless, at the very least, Astrophysicists have found VAST amounts of empirical evidence demonstrating that the universe did indeed result from a "big bang" like phenomena. Do a google search. One obvious piece of evidence is cosmic radiation, which is clear, irrefutable evidence for an expanding universe. On the contrary, you have ZERO evidence for a god, save for some ancient books of fairy tales and myths written by wandering desert nomads, 2000 years ago.

  "Scientists are giving into it ....and from most TV show on the matter scientists can’t really state that there is no creator. "

  > TV shows? Is this where you have received your education in evolutionary biology or have you made a serious effort to educate yourself in molecular, biological and anthropological studies and evidence that clearly demonstrate the evolution of life on this planet. What "scientists" are you referring to because the only creationist scientists I have recently heard of were being interviewed in the WATCHTOWER.

  "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 … "

  Silly nonsense. You are either being intentionally deceitful or you are simply completely unaware of the hundreds of thousands of RECENT discoveries that have been made in ALL fields of evolutionary biology. There are THOUSANDS of publishe, peer-reviewed articles demonstrating irrefutably the process of evolution. We have nearly COMPLETED the entire evolutionary tree for homo sapiens, not too mention the recent discoveries for TRANSITIONAL lifeforms that fill the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles, and fish and amphibians:

  

  

  "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?"

  > Nope, not at all, and why should it? What logical reason does interjecting some fictional, hypothetical "god" creature serve our understanding of the universe? None whatsoever.

  1. 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)

  > Um, actually they have. See above.

  " 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?"

  What is science? In brief, science is the reason you are not living in a cave somewhere wearing animal skins and grunting around a firepit. Its also how you are communicating on the internet right now. For the record, most atheists I know dont blame god for anything. Why would we blame something that does not exist? Atheists believe that humanity is ultimately responsible for its own fate, outside the confines of some tribal inspired, wrathful sky-god.

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

  Unfortunately, and with all due respect, pretty much every single observation you made about science and evolution was grossly misinformed and betrayed a complete and utter misunderstanding of even the most basic, high-school level principles of biological evolution. I strongly suggest you apply yourself to seriously studying the evidence for evolution, not through the prism of supersitious, religious fear and ignorance, but via a genuinely scientific mode of education. A trip to your local library and signing out an introductory biology text book would likely be the first place to start. Or even www.talkorigins.org
• 

  RAF

  ok kid-A

  Can't you see how far you are going ... ?
  if you take everything from the start there is too much missing links (otherwise scientists would have prove it clearly) it is not because a majority believe that it is believable (I guess you can agree with that at least).
  
  I've said TV show because here every year we have a few shows (TV documentary with debates) about it (scientists do explain at what point they are). So I guess if there were any specific evidence to prove evolution totally right I would know about it.
• 

  RAF

  Kid-A

  not through the prism of supersitious, religious fear and ignorance

  why do you assume that I've got religious fear (that's what's wrong in fact about the bible).