by Jack C. 79 Replies latest jw friends
Do believing Hindus and non believing Hindus have these same tiresome debates? Jews, Catholics. Mormons?
It's a cultural belief with holy people looking and sounding like the culture that invented them.
It's a great effort and belief is very successful but meaningless. Made up stuff really doesn't carry the day.
It enjoy debating theists by using their own holy books (qua'ran, torah, bible) against them. However, I can see where this can come across as a strawman fallacy if you're simply a diest rather than an apologist for a specific religion.
There are plenty of other means to trample the idea of an almighty creator, though. The evidence for evolution is solid. Fossil records and discoveries in genomes across all living organisms fill in empty spaces exactly where evolution predicts they will be! Vestigal features, the nested heirarchy of species, genetic plagarism, "unintelligent design" arguments and distribution of fossils not only favor evolution by natural selection, but rule out any claims in support of a creator/god.
The unpleasant by product is coming to terms with our own mortality and I'll admit, that's a very difficult thing to face and admit to yourself. At first, I had a very difficult time accepting that the few decades of "being" are all we've got. But, on Dawkin's scale, most Atheists are a 6, meaning that they're not dogmatic. They're open to any ideas that would change their current understanding of things if ever presented with verifiable evidence to the contrary. Much is left to be explored in quantum physics, neurology and the understanding of what consciousness is. I'm open and even attracted to the idea of our awareness being some fraction of a greater thing from another level, but it's important to rely on research and evidence to verify these claims eventually. What better proof than to find the answers when we die? I like to HOPE it's not a mere "acid trip" of dopamine and dimethyltyiptamine at the last microsecond of our lives, but even if that's all it is, it's comforting to know that our brains evolved to provide a pleasant exit for us. If there's more to it, I'm open-minded enough to accept the new reality when I get there. ;)
How much do you, the atheists here on the board base your own personal disbelief on the bible and religion? In your discussions do you prefer using the bible and religion as part or most of your argument or do you prefer debate purely on scientific and philisophical grounds?Are you totaly convinced of your position or are you openminded and occasionally consider that your position could be wrong; possibly even hope you are?
If you don't want to disprove the God of the Bible, I will gladly listen to proof of Jupitor or Odin. I like the way the Flying Sphaghetti Monster guy does it. FSM is just as valid as any god. (Yes, I am being totally serious.) Religion doesn't disprove God, the Bible doesn't disprove God. Philosophy helps. Religion and the Bible could easily support the deist.
I am totally convinced that none of the gods of man's invention exist. I am fairly well convinced that death is the end of the journey. There are no credible evidences of any life beyond death. But the science is fairly new and will take a few hundred years for the majority of everyone to accept. Ultimately, I think science will help practically everyone become atheists- not in our grandchildren's lifetimes, but sometime. But the tiniest crack of a possibility on that one exists to me that "life" is electricity which is energy and that since matter/energy can never be destroyed, the electricity lives on somehow someway and the atoms might have the tiniest bit of retention from previous uses in previous bodies. But I could not take it all the way to reincarnation. It's not really science, but some things are beyond us and always will be.
I hate that you contrast "convinced" atheists with "openminded." What a load of crap. Are there genuine believers openminded enough to accept that the voice they hear may not be their lord, but might be a chemical or mental malfunction? (I say "genuine" because so many are just lying about it.) Before my grandfather died, he had dimentia and went blind. He was trying to tell me about something terrible that he was seeing. I told him it wasn't real. He asked how I knew that. "Because you are blind." "Oh yeah," he said. In a lucid moment, he was totally openminded, regardless of what his brain was telling him.
If you want me to be openminded, then I might accept that FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (or Odin) is real. There may be many of what believers would call gods- advanced lifeforms beyond us that provided the spark of life. The God of the big three monotheistic beliefs- NO. His writings were proven false and created by men. But I could see those others hiding from us. Or maybe it's like Larry Niven's stories about magic. The earth was filled with magic at one time, but we've used it up. See how openminded I am?
@ ozbrad: don't forget, the Christians also get to claim the GENIUS of Kent Hovind lol!
Don't forget... using the Bible (or any "holy" book) to prove God exists would be like Harry Potter trying to prove HE exists in the pages of one of JK Rowling's books.
In this debate on this thread the world has been presented as made up of two camps, believers and unbelievers.
There is another group, Practitoners we could call them, for whom belief or un-belief are not important, they live by the Golden Rule, desire to help their fellow man as much as possible, and hopefully, leave the world a better place than when they entered it.
To such people there is not the time or need for debate on metaphysical matters, the physical, real world demands too much attention.
In this debate on this thread the world has been presented as made up of two camps, believers and unbelievers.
There is another group, Practitoners we could call them, for whom belief or un-belief are not important, they live by the Golden Rule, desire to help their fellow man as much as possible, and hopefully, leave the world a better place than when they entered it.
To such people there is not the time or need for debate on metaphysical matters, the physical, real world demands too much attention.
Sorry, must have fallen asleep pushing the Submit button,it is 5AM here in the U.K, I went back to try to cancel one post, but that don't work, this site is great,but like me,not perfect.
Interesting premise.
As an opinion, my view is that an atheist would take what the most commonly used book/tool in his part of the world that is used to "verify" god as the tool to prove that particular god's non-existence.
In the case of the bible, many arguments, (very sound ones imo) have been presented to demonstrate that god doesn't exist as Jehovah, YHWH, Jesus, etc.
I believe these arguments have a place on a board that frequently has transient JW's and former JW's coming and going. These ones need to test out their newly formulated views, be they theist or atheist.
I don't think the source matters as much as the sound reasons given one way or another.
Right on, Wobble!
Atheists are often asked, "Well, where do you get your MORALITY?" As if we need some IMMORAL murdering god to write a book for us! Morality is instinct. Altruism is an evolutionary advantage. Bottom line: if you're a mean, nasty, selfish, violent, cheating person, you harm the population as a whole and solutions have always been in place to deal with these social outcasts. If people contribute beneficially, society as a whole benefits. BAM. This trait is favorable for our environment.
As far as the Golden Rule, if a person sees a hot chick or dude and wants a hug or kiss from them, they cannot expect to run up and "do what they'd like done to them" and expect a pleasant result. For atheists, we'd flip the Golden Rule this way: "Do NOT do unto others that you do NOT want done to you." That's a little more accurate. Can't the OT authors get anything right???
