Belief in God: What were the difficult aspects and questions you had.

by designs 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sabastious

  Logic? What logic are you referring to? Scientists know there is much to learn, that's why they are still going.

  Yes, but there are truths that scientists today can't possibly fathom and never will, that's a fact. How would a scientist fare going up against a scientist of the distant future? About as well as a person with an arrow head hatchet would do against a person with an automatic rifle. That's the logic I am referring to not this "we are just doing our best" ruse. Many are (and I'm not insinuating that you aren't), but many are, without reasonable evidence to do so, on the aggresive and those people need to be cut off at the knees (figuratively of course).

  Bigotry cannot be fought with different bigotry.

  -Sab
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  When did I say you have to believe a hypothesis to falsify it?

  Perhaps I misunderstood. Can you clarify what you meant by this?

  Creating a rubuttal for a theist argument is directly entertaining the theist hypothesis and, as EntirelyPossible spoke about, "realscience" dictates that the atheist must believe in a God that can be proven using the scientific method.
• 

  poopsiecakes

  ...interrupting this thread to remind Sab that you're one post away from 5000 - make it a good one, buddy
• 

  sabastious

  Creating a rubuttal for a theist argument is directly entertaining the theist hypothesis and, as EntirelyPossible spoke about, "realscience" dictates that the atheist must believe in a God that can be proven using the scientific method.

  I need to rephrase I apologize.

  The reason why an atheist is an atheist is because they have weighed the scientific facts personally and have concluded that God does not exist. Interestingly when a God is shown to be evidenced and supported by the scientific method the atheist is immediately compelled to change his fundamental viewpoint on life.

  This is why many self-proclaimed atheists challenge creationist arguments. There is no inherent need to convince others of atheism as it is a personal choice. So the motivation behind the rebuttals has to be, ultimately, fear of change, correct?

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  ...interrupting this thread to remind Sab that you're one post away from 5000 - make it a good one, buddy

  I didn't see that! I hope my 5,000th was good :)

  -Sab
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  About as well as a person with an arrow head hatchet would do against a person with an automatic rifle.

  Poor example. That depends entirely on who is holding the rifle and the hatchet.

  That's the logic I am referring to not this "we are just doing our best" ruse.

  That's a statement, dude. I am asking what LOGIC you are using, not what statement of fact you are making. And it's not "we are doing our best" and it's not a ruse. Your use of loaded language is the exact opposite of using logic. What can we do but our best? That "best" that we are doing has led to constant improvements. It's a process. It takes time. No one is suggesting it doesn't or that we are done.

  Bigotry cannot be fought with different bigotry.

  I am not suggesting you are bigoted at all and if you read that into what I was saying then I apologize. I just think that, in order to criticize science or make claims about it, you need to understand it. I highly recommend "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. He brilliantly lays out how scientists MUST be skeptical of everything and insists on evidence, falsifiability and repeatability but, at the exact same time, be open to new ideas. It's a delicate line to walk and, as people, we aren't all perfect at it.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Interestingly when a God is shown to be evidenced and supported by the scientific method the atheist is immediately compelled to change his fundamental viewpoint on life.

  Can you give me an example when a God, any god, supreme or not, is supported by evidence and the scientific method?

  This is why many self-proclaimed atheists challenge creationist arguments. There is no inherent need to convince others of atheism as it is a personal choice. So the motivation behind the rebuttals has to be, ultimately, fear of change, correct?

  Not at all correct. I don't want my children or others growing up so woefully ignorant. It's not fear of change in any way. It's more of a desire for them not to be steeped in ignorance, pseudoscience and to be absolutely convinced they are right rather than seek to improve.
• 

  Paralipomenon

  How would a scientist fare going up against a scientist of the distant future?

  Based on history, they would fare better than theist would against a distant future theist.
• 

  unshackled

  I highly recommend "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.

  Entirely...I was just typing "Sab, if you haven't read the Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan yet..." and noticed your comment.

  I see atheism as simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. I can't prove deities don't exist, same as anyone else can't prove there isn't an invisible aardvark named Eddy in my attic (which there is and he's a mean bugger).

  Belief in a god is an add-on, a sign-up to a club with a hypothesis. Choosing to not sign-up to a god belief club, to me, is atheism.
  
  "Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in." - Carl Sagan
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  It's a great book. I loved the "fire breathing dragon in my garage" example.

  Sab, you're coming back aren't you?