Response to RWC's Atheist Questions

by Liberty 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Liberty

  Thanks to everyone for their responses.

  It is endlessly interesting to me how others feel about the Bible. My girlfriend, a recovering Southern Baptist, and myself, a recovering JW, have had many conversations based upon how and why we believed in the elements of our respective religions and why others still believe. Being a science and history buff from an early age I began to have questions about my JW doctrines at around 12 years old which caused me to avoid baptism. I am glad I did not take this step as my eventual leaving would have been even more painful and complicated. I was watched closely because of my unusual unbaptized status, especially by the time I was in my midteens, but I was generally a well behaved kid and kept most of my questions and opinions to myself allowing me somewhat normal relationships with other JW kids. I felt guilty because I could not reconcile what I saw in the congregation with our own JW doctrines, let alone, with what I read in the Bible. I had many questions and the Society's answers were pathetic at best. "Wait on Jehovah" was a constant refrain.

  My growing love for science, history, and Eastern religion were all contributing factors to my hating the narrow minded ignorance the Watchtower Society encouraged. I also had an "evil" hobby which really challenged my faith in the Bible, I kept aquariums of both fresh and salt water fish. Whenever we studied the Flood I knew that there could not have been a release of fresh water into the oceans because all of the sea life would have been wiped out and the reverse would be true for freshwater fish if the flood had been of salt water so why did we have both fresh and salt water fish just a few thousand years later? This was especially difficult to explain considering the Society's hard line against evolution and animals changing over time. I knew from experiance that only a few special fish are capable of adapting from fresh to salt water environments, and even then it had to be done gradually. Corals and other delicate sea creatures could not tolerate even the slightest changes, so the World Wide Flood, as preached by the Society, was frankly impossible from this evidence alone. Not to mention huge amounts of other evidences piling up against the Society as 1975 came and went and 1914 receaded ever farther into the past with no end of this World in sight (the obvious failure of the 1914 Generation link to the End is even more shocking now that 23 more years have past since I left).

  After I left home I just never went back to a Kingdom Hall. I struggled with my belief in God for years after leaving the Watchtower behind. Unfortunately, I had followed the Society's rules about higher education and had not taken college prep classes in high school nor applied for scholarships but my desire to learn was strong so I worked and saved my money and finally got into a University. I was older than the other students and not as well prepared but I made up for it in enthusiasm and took science and history classes. Wow! No wonder the Society discouraged a University education! None of what I had been taught by the Society was true. These classes supplimented my own research and knocked down every argument a Bible literalist could make. After several Geology, Biology, and Paleontology classes evolution made perfect sense, and other puzzle pieces started to fall into place. The World was much older, stranger, and its history far more complex than the Bible was capable of revealing. The God of the Bible was small, petty and illogical. I prefer my Universe without Him and His irratic behaviour. I reasoned that, if the Bible wasn't true, belief in a non-communicating extrabiblical God was pointless. I had finally become an Atheist.
• 

  RWC

  Liberty, your path towards Atheism is enlightening and I thank you for sharing it. However, I find it sad. To think that faith, in the sense that they are correct and have explained everything, in a bunch of scientists is in my opinion very narrow minded and short sighted. Scientific thinking and truths cahnge everyday. What was thought to be "right" last year is changed this year.
• 

  SixofNine

  What was thought to be "right" last year is changed this year.

  And that's a beautiful thing. If you could understand that, you'd understand alot more.
• 

  peacefulpete

  iiiii
• 

  peacefulpete

  "Anyone who believes his religious experience is unique has not studied religion"

  Univerally it is true that what we believe, we know for a fact to be true,whether right or wrong.We see it everywhere people believing in the craziest things,and why?Yes, they ignore evidence or require none,usually defended with some spiritual intuition."It has a ring of truth""I just KNOW it's true."I did it you did it,face it. Psychologists use terms like,Belief system,internalization,pattern seeking,etc.This is why many exJWs hastily grasp at another brand of religion when disenchanted by the first.Of course most JWs leave or are booted out for reasons other than intellectual.Hence much of the banter about repression and spiritual abuse.But whatever the reason we find ourselves here,the opportunity to grow exists.Redirect our positive energies tward worthwhile pursuits.
  First we must breach the topic of Bible errancy. Debates about the colrof Jesus garments are fruitless. the question is why do Jesus' virgin birth,star,manger,miracles,quotes,message of redemption,death by impalement,ressurection,accension,all mirror earlier religios traditions?The debate as to whether there was a Jesus is raging.But if therewas he bore little resemblance to the charactor in the Bible.Freely salted with familiar legends of the neighboring cultures.
  To learn that what we believed we should not have believed is the ordinary intelligent process by which understanding grows.

  Religion is not the enemy we are.We make religion.
  Our religion is today a very evolved sophisticated philosophy woven onto primative mythologies.
  Despite the relentless exposing of its flaws by combative atheists,religion has serviced us adaquately to this point in time.At it's core are time tested social conventions that preserved our species.Many today believe we know have the intelligence and experience to shed the mysticism while retaining the core ethics.What is missing is an emotional platform,and a degree of international consensus.I fear a long road ahead.Amnesty Intl.and various humanist organizations are in the forefront but need support.

  Books to read :Climbing Mount Improbable,Richard Dawkins,Excellent and readable.Tactfully lays out the mistakes "creaton scientists" make in ther arguements.(the ones in the creation book)also explains what evolution is (I thought I new too)

  Another good first read is, The Mythic Past,Thomas L. Thompson,an introduction to the science of paleography.Sites a number of parallels of Hebrew religion with "pagan".

  Very much reccomend bookssuch as Stephen Jay Gould's,The Rocks of Ages,to bouy your spirit and temper the fire while struggling with these
  issues.

  You must teach yourself to "make the truth your own". A truism a heard somewhere.
• 

  peacefulpete

  To suggest that atheism is a consequence of being hurt by JWs is to say half the truth.Remember when you had a great rv that wouldn't progress?How we would say that maybe a terrble thingwould happen in their lfe and they will turn to Jehovah?It happens alot,people do make poor judements when feeling vulnerable.It is also said that a fanatic is someone who doubles his effort when he looses his way.In other words the mind set that "I can't be that wrong"blinds them from seeing the big picture.They cling to what is secure despite the obvious futility of continuing.My conversion was not in two steps,Hurt feelings then question the Bible.It hurt me to question the Bible.
  I really don't know what percentage of exJWs have forsaken religion altogether,it wouldbe interesting to find out.I never heard of people leaving for reasons of intellectual difference,I was always told that the sinful heart created doubts to conceal it's secret desire for bad. The doubters had fooled themselves into believing something was wrong with doctrine,to justify a pursuit of sin. My was not to ask the questions earlier.

  HOW MANY OUT THERE LEFT FOR
  SCIENTIFIC REASONS?
• 

  rem

  Peacefulpete,

  I left for a combination of scientific and doctrinal issues, including the WT's ridiculous chronology, which I suppose could be classified as a scientific reason. Though the 607 BCE issue seemed to be the most important for me, scientific issues such as the globabl flood and evolution became equally important to me as I began to educate myself.

  rem

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

  Liberty

  Hi again RWC,

  Thanks again for your response. I just wanted to point out that I do not have "faith" in scientists or their theories. Scientists use the scientific method which requires presenting evidence which is then constantly scrutenized by the scientific community as a whole. Unlike religion, faith is not involved in science. No one is expected to believe anything, and an individual's belief is based upon their assesment of the evidence which is always open to questioning and reevaluation. New evidence will change the general beliefs of the scientific community so science is always prepared to change when enough objective evidence is observed from the real world.

  Literalist Bible appologists are in trouble throughout the modern world because they do not subject themselves to the scientific method nor do they produce compelling evidence to support their claims. I believe what I believe based upon my understanding of the evidence, which I have observed on my own, not because a University Prof. told me I had to. I have seen with my own eyes that baby frogs are fish with fins and gills which then change into air breathing, limbed amphibians as adults. I have seen the fossils of toothed "birds" with long lizard tails, wing clawed hands with clear feathers. These things are "missing links" between lizards and birds. I could go on & on listing the evidence I have observed myself, not to mention what I have read which is then checked by other scientists. I don't have to take a scientist's word or have faith in his theories because I can observe evidence and reproduce his experiments for myself. If I have a better explaination it is my duty to present it and find more evidence in support of my theory. Ego, competition, and curiousity keep scientists honest because they rely on the scientific method.

  Where is your evidence? I would like to see the reasons you believe in what you believe. If you present compelling evidence the scientific community will look at it. No one presents evidence that the Bible stories are true so how can I be expected to believe them? Is the Tower of Babel story true? Can the Sun stop in mid sky? Do rotting corpses come back to life? Was the Earth created before the Sun? Was there a global Flood? All the evidence I've seen says that these things don't happen except in fairy tales because there is no evidence for them. God will not even produce evidence of His own existance so why should I take the word of just one of many equally silly ancient books that it's view of Him is the true one and all others are false? Just because I was born into a culture that says our religion based upon our book is the truth is not evidence enough for me. I want to see the truth for myself. Where is the evidence that our Bible is better than all the other holy books? So far they are all equally unprovable, equally silly, and equally unbelievable when confronted with the measure of evidence. With the evidence standards of traditional Christianity why are not Islam and its Koran, The Book Of Mormon, Egyptian, Norse, or Assyrian texts all equally valid?
• 

  RWC

  Liberty, You pose alot of questions in your post. I will not be able to answer them all here, but will over time I am sure.

  The place to start I would quess is the with creation. First, as a scientist, you must agree that science tells us that something can't come from nothing. If you are to exclude the realm of the supernatural, you must agree that creation did not start from nothing. Something had to be there for the big bang to begin. From a scientific standpoint, what was that and how did it get there?

  Then, as a scientist, you must agree that you would not place much stock in a theory that could not be replicated or had a strong probability of failure, or depended upon so many unknown factors that it can't be deemed reliable. That is what you have with the portion of evolution or abiogensis that trys to explain the origins of life through evolution. The idea that with just the passage of enough time the elements would come together in such a complex and diverse fashion that all life as we know it would be created is unbelievable. In any other context scientist would say it would never happen. For example, place a watch on a table in pieces. Even a million years later it will still be a watch in pieces. It will not have been put together through the passage of time. What makes you think that all of plant and animal life, much more complicated than a watch would do that?

  Biblical archaeology had shown time and again the accuracy of the Bible as an historical text. For example, fairly recent finds in the City of Dan confirm, through the enemies of the Isrealites, that David was a real person and was the King of the Jews. Another example is the story of Joseph being sold in to salvery. It has been noted by a recognized Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen from the University of Liverpool that the price noted in Gensis ( twenty silver shekels ) is precisely the going price for slaves in the region during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries BCE. There are alot more examples of where the stories of the ancient Isralites match with extrabiblical evidence on issues such as inheritence, treaties, oaths, etc.. The importance of this is that it is evidence of the proper settings of the events in the Bible that compare correctly with the time they are believed to have happened, not at when skeptics believe that the Jewish people made them up much later.

  Why the Bible and not the other religions you mention? First, the Book of Morman was written by one man a little over one hundred years ago. The events described in the book have yet to be cooberated with one artifact through archeology and instead alot can be traced to Joesph Smith's personal history. The Bible on the other hand was written by numerous authors over thousands of years and has been authenicated over and over again.

  Second, the bible is the only holy book that places its spiritual leader ( Jesus) in an historical context with real people and real time. We know when he was born, who sentanced him to death, and when he died. The people who wrote about him stated these things very specifically and could easily have been refuted to obscurity. The other stories of ancient Gods, are not so specific, instead, they talk about things that happened in ancient history with no historical context. Also, the Bible is the only holy book that makes specific prophecies that have come true.

  Finally, what makes you think God has not made himself known? Do you want him to appear in the sky and annouce to each person he is there? If so, where would faith come in? In truth, God has presented himself everywhere. He is the intelligent designer in creation, he is the divine author behind the Bible, He is the real man Jesus who came to earth, he is the one who spoke through prophets and whose prophecies came true.

  I know this is only a start to our conversation. But I want to aske you a question. Do you expect to prove the basis of faith through science based upon our limited abilites to understand the world around us? For example, do you dismiss that Jesus could have risen from the dead because we cannot explain that scientifically?
• 

  peacefulpete

  To RWC

  The arguement your making is called the "God of the gaps".Creationists often expound on the as of yet unexplained aspects of biology and use these as "proof" of a god. Year after year they need to change their arguements as science explains more and more of the once mysterious.Natural selection is a proven biological mechanism preserving change in living things.Don't confuse the issue by using inanimate objects (watches,meatgrinders) in your illustrations, No one is saying that watches appear from nothing.This takes us to another discussion about entropy and how the second law of physics is misunderstood by ceationsts,(another day perhaps).
  As to the origins of life,this is not the field of evolutionists.Their work begins with living organisms.
  Today much ha been learned about how life may have arisen from inanimate elements.New life form discoveries of extreme simplicity has made it seem less imposible.Very interesting now is the newest findings about nanobes.Just last month it was found that DNA can replicate itself without protein involvement.This shtters the favorite creationst's arguement about which came first protein or DNA since they appear interdependant.We have much to learn and it is exciting.We will never be able to retrace every minute step of the path life took till now. But every aspect of electromagnetic theory is not "proven" either.But few question electricity is real.Patience and reasonableness are hallmarks of a thinking person.If the subject were not such an emotionally charged one would you be questioning it?

  As to what was the first cause, the new physics offer some plausable hypotheses.But again the controversial part is the first 1/1000000 of a second.Thats where the known laws of physics break down.The problem is that we have limited means to study what happens at such extreme temperaturs.They are now studying Gamma pulses and supernovas,with hopes to learn more. Also on a micro scale the newest particle accelerator will allow them to observe miniblack holes, again with the commendable goal of broaden our understanding of the world around us. Do not be too quick to invoke a supernatural explanation whenever present science admits it's ignorance.If it comforts you to call the first 1/10000000 of a second a miracle and say God did it,I don't mind nor does anyone else, but was this God henseforth necessary? nope.