If evolution is true ?

by D wiltshire 88 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mommy

  Abaddon,
  I was actually going to reply something similiar to what you said in your last post. But I figured I would stay out of the convo. But I have to say, that creationist do not understand when all the cards are on the line, they have more to gain from their belief then an atheist does. Before I really starting looking at why I believed in god, I though that a sad world it would be without god in my life. I thought, and even commented on how people would be commit suicides, and have no direction due to non belief in god. Boy, was I wrong I can honestly say, I am more confident in humans now, especially those who don't have a belief in god.

  I remember another poster commenting, "He is god and can do anything he wants, that is a good enough answer for me, so I will always use it." It used to be a good enough answer for me. Along the lines of if someone lived a billion...etc. It all sounds good, wonderful, makes you go to sleep better at night, makes you help the little lady across the road, and not gossip. Because someone is watching you. Why not do all those things, without the chance of reward? Be kind, generous with yourself, and loving to all, without thinking I have my reward waiting for me?

  Anyway, I thought I would pop in here and blow the theory that atheists are better lovers(just seeing if you are awake, I know we are) The theory that atheists are selfish and only looking for answers they want. Because when it all gets down to the nitty gritty, an atheist is not doing this for a reward. And it is understandable when a christian fights so hard against us. The thought of not believing in god when you believe in god is uncomprehensible...I know I have been there. It is not so bad over here on this side though, I must say, it really has opened my eyes to many, many other things I would never have opened my eyes to.
  wendy
• 

  D wiltshire

  Lark,

  Looking over my past statements I think I must, make a correction.
  Yes, many scientist work very hard to uncover facts.
  Yes, theories that they formulate are are reasonable from present knowlege of observable facts.
  Do they take in all variables no, for that would leave them with too many uncertainties.
  They may presuppose certain things to be true. Such as our universe is a closed system.
  Or that observable laws governing matter are always the same where ever you go in the universe or outside the universe.
  Such things while sounding true based on observable facts may not neccesarily be true under conditions and laws not yet observable.
  Granted we have to start with the observable.
  No one has seen a singularity as thought to have existed.
  Do I beleive that all matter in the universe came from a singularity?
  Yes, at least very possible in my mind, but not with out some reasonable doubts, Hey a singularity could have been brought to birth by God himself, and seems to many who beleive in God as the way God caused the univers to be.
  Let me repeat myself as I have already stated on this thread. I don't disbeleive in evolution, could God creative works when examined by scientist reveal a gradual proccess that took millions of years, well if scientist are correct the answer is yes.
  But as a layman, I don't understand the proof of how they can say this with certainty.

  Lark you did help me to better see the need to be not so quick to dismiss out of hand what scientist say if it doesn't go along with my ideas of God and for that I thank you, and (Abbadon too, ouch! as I get off my fat ass)
  But as you all must agree the book is not closed and the jury is still out as to the existance of God.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Abaddon

  D wiltshire;

  I am curious at your lack of reply. Do you see it as I see it, a three way split between god being a bastard, god not being bothered, or there being no god?

  If we can agree on the insoluble nature of the evolution vs. creation debate as regards initial origins, I think there is profitable discourse to be had on the logic of the resultant position.

  If my summary as given above and at slightly greater length in the post you've not responded to yet is incorrect, I'd be interested if you'd point out where.

  I'm not asking you to tell me WHICH one is correct, but just to agree or disagree that it is a three way split as I've outlined. If you can site reasons for disagreeing (such as proof that god is concerned and benevolent, which would mean there are four options as distinct from the three I've outlined), all the better.

  I'd like to point out that this is the point you started caps locking and being rude (at least to my perception) when you thought I wasn't responding to you. Maybe you are composing a reply at length...

  I do hope so as it would be disappointing for you to do what almost every other theist has done at this point in the conversation (I've done this before), and that's walk away, as the answers they come up with are not the ones they like. The ones that don't do that simply say everything they've said again, seemingly for their benefit and edification, as taking it from the top sure as hell doesn't change my opinion.

  Maybe that last sentence is dogmatic AND haughty (is that what they mean by multi-talented?)... maybe you will reply... maybe I'm going home...

  All these questions and more will be answered in tomorrow's edition of jehovahs-witnesses.com...

  8-)
• 

  rem

  The book is not closed and the jury is still out as to the existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns. (or insert any deity or other fictional being)

  Is there really any good reason to believe in the existance of something for which there is no evidence?

  "There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" - Richard Dawkins

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  Abaddon

  Mommy;

  Your comment;

  "I am more confident in humans now, especially those who don't have a belief in god."

  Harsh but fair, sad but true.

  I'm nice 'cause I want to be, not because big skyman will give me gold star. I'm talking about 'random acts of kindness', not things you might get payback on other than in the general what goes around comes around thing.

  If an atheist is doing something for no reason, he or she probably just likes doing things for people.

  Many Christian's are not that cynical, but sometimes you encounter this cold, 'doing it coz it Gawd's will you stinking sinner' Christian, that would probably make JC cock his Glok and chamber his Uzi, so to speak.

  I don't mean you DW, and I don't call a passing sentence a reply... in case you wondered...

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 

  D wiltshire

  Abbadon,

  As I already stated in honesty that I don't claim to understand God's ways.
  The Bible teaches that's Jesus Christ died for our sins, so that we could get everlasing life.
  I don't clearly understand the legal aspects of it all, I have faith that the Bible is God's word and do beleive Jesus died for us, but don't claim to understand all the legal aspects of the whole arrangement.

  As for choices 1,2,or 3 I chose none of the above.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Abaddon

  D wiltshire;

  Your main beef seemed to be the lack of definative closure in some areas of scientific theory.

  Now you admit that you 'don't claim to understand God's ways'.

  Are you saying that there is a lack of definative closure in some areas of the theory of god? You seem to admit that you cannot prove or understand all of it.

  Beware of attacking others' beliefs when you don't understand the logic of your own!

  8-)

  We've actually believed the same things as you; the theory of god, the inspired Bible, the whole shebang, and now we don't.

  We didn't stop believing because we were sulking - you are just swallowing Dub (and fundy) propoganda if you believe that.

  We stopped believeing because we found the evidence for the theory of evolution was far more convincing than the evidence for the theory of god.

  To have someone who obviously still believes or would like to believe in the theory of god act like our 'beliefs' are weak and unfounded, when they just have a smattering of knowledge about those theories, is a little annoying.

  We know the holes in your theories; if you are willing to say 'I believe, because I choose to', well, good for you for your honesty.

  But if you attack our beliefs, know the chapter and verse. I wouldn't attack yours if I couldn't do so from a position of knowledge. I'd just end up looking silly.

  Chapter and verse and your mention of the Bible brings us the next topic... is the Bible inspired of god?

  You have faith. Why? Because of the proof, or your desire that it be true?

  I would love to respond to a new thread from you on this subject...

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  ianao

  Abaddon:

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

  How true and well put. I've had a few shards in the eye myself.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Abbadon,

  I fail to see your point:
  

  Are you saying that there is a lack of definative closure in some areas of the theory of god? You seem to admit that you cannot prove or understand all of it.
  Beware of attacking others' beliefs when you don't understand the logic of your own!
  8-)

  You yourself admit you don't understand how something can come from nothing.
  Is all that you brought forth to support your position solid with no holes that need to be filled?
  We both live in a glass house my friend.
  Did I throw stones, no I raised questions and stated opinions.

  To be fair, I think you must admit what you say here is simply, your opinion:
  

  We stopped believeing because we found the evidence for the theory of evolution was far more convincing than the evidence for the theory of god.
  To have someone who obviously still believes or would like to believe in the theory of god act like our 'beliefs' are weak and unfounded, when they just have a smattering of knowledge about those theories, is a little annoying.
  We know the holes in your theories; if you are willing to say 'I believe, because I choose to', well, good for you for your honesty.

  As you know theories change as new things are observed, yours are not set in stone.
  As you stated part of my choice to beleive in God is because it is my desire true,.. but part of my choice is it makes the most sense to me, based on what I know.
  I have nothing against science, but feel scientific knowledge will increase for many millions of years and old light will be replaced by new light, theories about the begining of everything, will come and go as the old gets debunked by the the new.
  You may have more scientific knowledge than me, and for that I salute you. I'm sure you agree the more man learns about his world, the more questions he also asks that need to be answered.
  You also must agree that their are many scientist that are respected by their peers, who beleive that the great first cause is God.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Julie

  :You also must agree that their are many scientist that are respected by their peers, who beleive that the great first cause is God.

  Really? I did not know this, who are they?

  Curious,
  Julie