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

by designs 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JonathanH

  A couple of corrections. Agnosticism isn't the belief that god might or might not exist and you have yet to figure it out, it is the position that it is fundementally impossible to know if there is a god or not. Atheism is the position that it is possible to know if there is a god, and there is no evidence pointing to the existence of one. Theism is the belief that we can know there is a god, and we do know because he interacts with his creation. Deism is the belief that we can know there is a god, there is evidence that he exists, but he does not intervene with nature.

  As such, an atheist doesn't argue with arguments for god because of fear of change, but rather because of the desire to be accurate. If somebody says "The sun rotates around the earth" my correcting the person would not be a result of my being afraid to accept change, but rather upholding the logical positivism that demonstrates to the contrary.

  Also atheism is not a positive conclusion, rather it is a nuetral stance (Unlike agnosticism which is a positive conclusion, namely that it is impossible to know whether or not any gods exist). I do not believe in leprechauns but it is not because of my exhaustive research on leprechauns, it is because there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that leprechauns exist. As such the atheist position is not "God does not exist" it is "There is no compelling evidence to suggest that gods exist". A subtle but important difference.
• 

  sabastious

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

  Yes of course, but it will have to be tomorrow.

  -Sab
• 

  simon17

  And everytime we press the magnify button and see more no life, even remotely comparable to our own, is found.

  This is not correct. The magnify button is essentially able to detect stars. We can infer the existence of planets but not actually "see" them. If civilization as advanced as human being circa 1800 existed on the closest planets of the nearest stars, there would be no way to tell. Detecting a civilaziation capable of sending radio wave messages would increase this radius of possible detection (although quite a bit of luck would still be needed) but even then it would still be a tiny fraction of our galazy that we could hope to "confirm" in this way.

  So really the only evidence of absence we have is that there is no major life in our solar system currently living on planet surfaces and that we have not been visited by any alien civilization.
• 

  J. Hofer

  > 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.

  that's not quite correct. most don't generally conclude "god does not exist" (with the exception of many of those specific deities like jehovah or santa claus), but don't believe in god due to lack of evidence. it's like in a murder case, there is the possibility that the blamed person is the murderer, but if there's not enough evidence to support that claim, he/she goes free. there is the possibility of a god to exist, but if that's the case he hid really well and removed his traces.
• 

  bohm

  Anyone who calls themselves an atheist is supporting the already researched conclusion that "God does not exist" otherwise they must be considered an agnostic.

  strawman.

  Reading this thread, i think you would do well by using words (atheist, agnostic, scientific method, etc.) the same way everyone else does.

  This is why many self-proclaimed atheists challenge creationist arguments.

  if i wrote: "So and so is why self proclaimed theists believe in god", would that sound arrogant to you because of the implications: (a) theists are not "true theists" but somewhat deluded about their own state of mind (which i understand) (b) their behaviour is so transparent and obvious to everyone but themselves that i can make blanket statements about their motives.

  There is no inherent need to convince others of atheism as it is a personal choice.

  i agree in the sence there is no inherent need to convince others the earth is round either.

  So the motivation behind the rebuttals has to be, ultimately, fear of change, correct?

  facepalmingly false.

  rather erecting strawmen, i think you should consider the obvious: atheists debunk creationist arguments because they tend to consist of a solid core of lies, and many atheists do not like to see bad people try to mislead good people with lies.
• 

  sabastious

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

  I think faith exists because there, so far, is no such God that meets that criteria. What's interesting, to me, is that atheists are actually forced to believe in a God that can be proven by science. It sounds like you are putting your believe system in the hands of an external force (the people not giving up on trying to prove God exists). Almost like a belief deference. From the way I see it humans are currently on a path where what so many people refer to as the Spirit Realm could be finally be explained with science. It seems feasible, to me, that me being 27 years old in June could possibly see these events transpire, but I won't hold by breath.

  I guess what I am trying to say in a nutshell is that I think the atheist position is a weak position to take and I am genuinely baffled by anyone's choice to settle in that philosophy on life.

  Why does God have to be mystical anyway? Why don't people ever entertain a time when we actually know what God is? He's/it's not capable of drawing us into it's realm? Even if it was a process.

  That's why I think people, for the most part, take the good with the bad in their lives. I think we feel this process and it provides unmatched motivation to live for the Greater Good.

  I take the Diest position myself: there is a God because I feel there is a God when I examine what I believe to be his/it's creation by an unknown means.

  The more we can explain about ourselves and the natural world the closer we get to the designer, if he/it exists. Mysticism and superstition are the real enemies and they need to fade away, which they seem to be doing very gradually which is discouraging.

  It reminds me of a casino slot machine. The slot machine is life and it's rigged for us to lose. It seems like most people try to trick themselves that they are not losing their money, but actually mathmatically working towards some huge payoff, but it's a self created fantasy. Really what we should be doing is trying to win the game by examining it's rulesets and using our God given Reason to find out if a winning scanario is possible. That very same Reason should also escort us to the door after we have figured out the machine is a scam and walk out of the casino never to return.

  Reason has been abandoned by so many and it kind of freaks me out.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  bohm can please take the time to explain why you believe something is a strawman or any other debate foul. When you just yell "strawman!" I don't have enough to work with to form a reply.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  This is not correct. The magnify button is essentially able to detect stars. We can infer the existence of planets but not actually "see" them. If civilization as advanced as human being circa 1800 existed on the closest planets of the nearest stars, there would be no way to tell. Detecting a civilaziation capable of sending radio wave messages would increase this radius of possible detection (although quite a bit of luck would still be needed) but even then it would still be a tiny fraction of our galazy that we could hope to "confirm" in this way.

  How do we take photos if we can't see them?

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  that's not quite correct. most don't generally conclude "god does not exist" (with the exception of many of those specific deities like jehovah or santa claus), but don't believe in god due to lack of evidence. it's like in a murder case, there is the possibility that the blamed person is the murderer, but if there's not enough evidence to support that claim, he/she goes free. there is the possibility of a god to exist, but if that's the case he hid really well and removed his traces.

  A case can always be reopened with new evidence. In case you haven't noticed our species is growing technologically at an exponential rate. We used to have decades that we refered to (70s, 80s, 90s etc) because the 10 year spans had enough of the same stuff to categorize them. It's not like that anymore. Where were we 5 years ago? The tech world has exploded again which will of course bring new information to the table.

  Your post has the tone of a defense attorney coming home from a long trial, kicking his feet up and saying, "glad that's over" when new evidence could be springing forth any minute and he'll have to drag his ass back to the courtroom.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Reading this thread, i think you would do well by using words (atheist, agnostic, scientific method, etc.) the same way everyone else does.

  Point taken, but how to I check whether what I am saying is "what everyone else says"?

  -Sab