Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

by Slappy 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Galileo

  I believe this can apply in the reverse also, no? A non-believer asking for proof when his/her mind is already made up about the non-existence of God.

  The difference is that we weren't born non-believers. Almost everyone carries a belief system very similar to their parents. Muslems tend to stay Muslems. Mormons tend to stay Mormons. Hindus tend to stay Hindus, etc. It is the rare person that can examine their belief system and find it flawed. You are a Christian, and you were raised a Christian, albeit a different denomination. That doesn't mean that it is impossible that your belief system is correct, but it does mean that someones opinion that has examined their belief and disagreed with it carries more weight. That person's belief system is not based on the blind luck of the philosophy they were raised with.

  If you were born an Aztec you would believe fervently in the snake god Quetzalcoatl. If you were born a Viking you would believe in Thor. If you were born in Afghanistan you would pray to Allah five times a day. You could use your rational for believing in the Christian god to believe in these as well. The same could not be said for me, nor for many others on this board. We have rejected the superstitions we were born into. My mind is not made up about the non-existence of god. If evidence could be produced for his existence, I could be persuaded to believe. I simply refuse to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. That is why I reject Quetzacoatl, Thor, Allah, and Jehovah alike. There is no difference in evidence for believing one over the others. There is only the accident of birth.
• 

  gymbob

  Slappy~

  You say you want to understand the "other perspective", and I'm trying to help you do that....

  Instead of dodging the question, why don't you answer it? Instead of trying to insult me by saying I don't add anything to the discussion, why don't you just answer the question?

  Instead of telling me to "calm down" (pretty funny, considering you started this thread with 3 exclamation points in the subject), why don't you just answer the question?

  Can you answer the question, Why is faith required in your belief system? Gymbob
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Slappy,

  Here is something I did a few years ago when I was looking at how the Bible was put together. It is quite long so I will only post the introduction here with a link to the complete text if you are interested.

  Even though it is long, it can be read in about 3 or 4 minutes if you skip over all of the Biblical text.

  pseudo

  Separating The Two Flood Accounts
  Most people may not realize it, but the Biblical Flood Account actually consists of two interwoven flood narratives.
  

  JEDP Theory
  It seems most modern Bible views concerning the books of Moses pre-suppose the JEDP theory. This documentary theory claims to identify 4 underlying sources or documents in the books of Moses. These presumed documents are called J (for Jahweh) and E (for Elohim) which are names of God; D (for Deuteronimic) and P (for Priestly). Each of these documents are claimed to have their own characteristics and theology, and which surprisingly, often contradict that of the other documents.

  …

  [broken link removed]

  The JEDP theory first came about when it was noticed that at some points in the text of the books of Moses, God was sometimes referred to with the Divine Name, while at other times he was referred to with the title God (Elohim). As the theory developed, the D(euteronimic) and P(riestly) strands were added to the theory.

  An interesting aspect about the restoration of the Divine Name to the OT, (as in the NWT), is that such a translation serves to highlight the locations in the text where the original writers used the Divine Name as opposed to the title God. Although the distinction can be observed in translations that use “LORD” instead, I feel that it is much easier seen in translations such as the NWT.

  So with all that being said, let’s take a look at the text.

  http://home.valornet.com/eldavis/the%20flood.htm
• 

  besty

  So don't ask for proof when you have made your mind up in advance - the scientific community has nothing to offer you - it stands for progress, research and the balance of probabilities.

  I believe this can apply in the reverse also, no? A non-believer asking for proof when his/her mind is already made up about the non-existence of God. The believing community has nothing to offer - it stands for faith, love, happiness, and the many other things that the Bible teaches. However, I've realized my folly in trying to convince people who have no care to believe, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future. Now, as I mentioned earlier, I'll apply myself to understanding, more completely, the opposing belief.

  1 - this thread is about you, a believer, asking for proof in the origins of the universe, evolution etc - not sure who the non-believer asking for proof of God is - not me certainly

  2 - talking of burden of proof, your magick man in the sky that's doing it all is somewhat more extraordinary as a claim than a progresssive, evidence and research based scientific theory - therefore the burden of proof remains with you. Are there other branches of science that you wish to extend your magick man in the sky doing it all theory to? Perhaps the planets are God's marbles collection or somesuch....

  3 - Religionists do not have a monoply on faith, love and happiness. Educate yourself on atheistic morality please.

  4 - Interesting that you have precluded other religionists from the 'believing community' - just those that follow the Bible? The same Bible that has God promoting the rape and slaughter of women and children?

  5 - We do care to believe - no point in me covering the old ground of the intellectual profile of atheists. Simply we have checked the references of those that would imprison our thinking and neuter our consciences, and found them wanting.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Slappy

  You are busy shouting at everyone and throwing out insults, as freely as Christians are thrown to the lions. You are so busy shouting that you have not realized that you are making most of the noise.

  People who are yet to be convinced there is a god are open minded and prepared to examine any evidence to support the claim that the Christian god exists and has not turned lame. Christians however are closed minded and defensive. Frightened that their faith could be weakened.

  People who are yet to be convinced there is a god have no need to offer proof of any kind. They are waiting for those who do believe to offer the evidence. What you are presenting is jumble of subjective nonsense disorted further by your emotional needs, that simply proves you have an illogical mind and a tendency to fantasy. My 'reading comprehension problem' is helped by writing that is comprehensible but you are unable to deliver.

  May Jupiter guide you to enlightenment and protect you from lesser gods.
• 

  jam

  I did not start my journey too become a atheist , but to strengthen my faith. But the more research i did the more i begain to distant myself from the belief of the bible. I spent a year in the book of genesis, I could not get past the first 13 chapters.
• 

  The Scotsman

  Slappy

  I stand and applaud your post.

  I agree with your points entirely.

  We will all know someday that God exists.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Slappy

  I admire what you are trying to do. But how do you expect to reason with people who are given over to the possibility that God doesn't exist?
• 

  inrainbows

  slappy

  Don’t give me minor evidence that gives small support for a theory that has slowly been massaged to fit that minor evidence.

  I had to laugh when I read this.

  Somehow you think science adjusting theory to fit evidence is a bad thing. That is the whole idea of science and why it is infinately superior to dogma based on claims of divine revelation.

  I was going to reply at length; y

  • Your comparisons of Jesus to Colombus for example (zero physical evidence and disputable contemporary accounts vs physical evidence and many contemporary accounts) is just silly.
  • You ignore the obvious and many areas where the Bible's account of history runs contrary to fact (creation account, flood, sun standing still).
  • You ask 'where did we learn to speak and write? Who taught us? ... We cannot teach ourselves these things. This is impossible." I suggest you actually do some research; human's use of language is inate; ours is far more complex than other animals, but if you put people together with no common language they will communicate using sounds for objects and develop a 'patoi'. Their children will use the patoi and develop grammar for it and the patoi becomes a creole; and creoles are as viable and grammatically rich as any other language. Written language arose in several different places.

  But at the very start you show there is little point in having a discussion with you and those who applaud you.

  Your paradigm is so removed from that of someone I could reach agreement with it isn't worth trying. You scorn a world view that adjusts it's interpretation of the world to fit the facts of the world.

  I ask you to respect my freedom as I respect yours and to do others no harm as I do others no harm.

  I find it sad that you have to take something that can be a force for good (faith) and shackle it to a dogma and a book. You are worshipping an idol based upon dead people's ideas of god wrapped in pigskin printed on squashed dead trees.

  Your god is essentially a book.

  Try to know god as it might be, not as you have been raised to imagine or want it.

  Embrace science; it is a friend, not an enemy. And it no more opposes faith than guns oppose life. What it does do is lead you from ignorant erroneous faith to something that is pure and free.
• 

  The Scotsman

  inrainbows -

  ""You are worshipping an idol based upon dead people's ideas of god wrapped in pigskin printed on squashed dead trees. ""

  You believe an idea from dead people!!!!!! Did you wake up one day on your own with the conclusions you have? No!!!!

  I admit, it is best to live and let live and not to be to dogmatic about belief etc. The aspect of this that annoys me is that Evolution is taught as if a Fact to millions of people around the globe - I am not saying that all points of evolution are wrong but I do think people should be taught both creation / evolution equally.

  "" Embrace science; it is a friend, not an enemy. And it no more opposes faith than guns oppose life. What it does do is lead you from ignorant erroneous faith to something that is pure and free.""

  Science is wonderful - MOST of the time. But to suggest that anyone that has Belief in a God has an "ignorant erroneous faith" is of the utmost arrogance on your part!

  The Scotsman