Why aren't you an Atheist?

by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Twitch

  I have developed a distrust for educated people. They generally think they are better than you. I see wisdom from above to be far greater than knowledge from below. However knowledge is very important, but it's not what separates the sheep from the goats.

  -Sab

  You distrust the educated because they think they're better than you, because their knowledge isn't from "above" or both?

  Sorry, either way seems foolish to discount what mankind has accumulated through blood, sweat and tears for millenia in favour of personal feelings.
• 

  sabastious

  Twitch, who said I am discounting knowledge from below? I don't know how wisdom from above really works, I just am aware of it's existence and it's superiority. Education is something I am not only going to do myself, but I will make sure my kids do too. There is nothing wrong with believing in a superior form of understanding than what secular knowledge has to offer. What happens if when we get on Mars the religionists are already there! Now that would be funny.

  -Sab
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Re: Why aren't you an Atheist?

  Why does it matter?
• 

  Twitch

  Why does it matter?

  Indeed ;)
• 

  tec

  I'm not sure how many times you are going to ask this question tec...as though asking it makes it true.

  Asking a question is not stating something. It is looking for an answer.

  I think most of the non believers here have pointed out that they don't believe any of it. So it is not necessary to choose one way or the other. The whole thing is taken at face value.

  The many 'debates' that i have had with non-believers over the nature of God (if he did exist) would bely this statement of yours. You choose a side to argue, then you have chosen. So why choose one thing over another? Does your lack of belief depend upon God being the 'bad guy'? Why else would you (you in general) cling so hard to it?

  That is why I ask the question.

  It is those that believe that do the chosing..they have a stake in it.

  See above.

  I acknolwledge that the bible says good things and bad things. But when you are having a conversation with someone that believes in only the good...and ignores or dismisses the bad. It is not biased to point out that both exist.

  No it is not biased. But why point that out with me? I already know what exists in the bible. I have never denied it. So it is a moot point with me.

  Not just the idealist view of the bible. Many believers completly ignore or dismiss the things they consider bad, or not alligned with thier ideal Christ/God.

  I don't think many believers do this. Some do. I certainly do not accept something that is in conflict with Truth. That makes no sense.

  The only people chosing which conflicting ideas to believe are believers.

  Once again, see above. If that were true, then non-believers (the ones i speak with here at least) would be far more neutral.

  This statement below shows your bias....

  Not the contradictions. The contradicting verses. If you state that God wants sacrifice... you have to ignore the verses that state He does NOT want sacrifice. You ignore the one verse, in your preference to believe the other verse. What is your basis for that?..tec

  I accept the bible says both....you don't. You ignore the verses that say he does. I don't care that it says both. I believe neither. I have no designer god to prove.

  Untrue.

  I accept that the bible says both. I do not accept that God says both. I accept what is in line with CHRIST. And I accept that the rest that is not in line is a mistake, misunderstanding, addition, etc.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  kassad84

  13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2
• 

  still thinking

  Does your lack of belief depend upon God being the 'bad guy'? Why else would you (you in general) cling so hard to it?

  My lack of belief 'as you put it' does not depend on anything. Any more than not believing in fairies depends on anything. I don't 'lack' belief in fairies either. Maybe you see not believing in fairies as a 'lack of belief' in them too? I dunno.

  I don't 'cling' to anything. I just point out the other side of the debate that people who 'cling' to their belief like to ignore.

  I would like to clarify I don't have a lack of anything...that is your opinion being applied to me.
• 

  NewChapter

  The many 'debates' that i have had with non-believers over the nature of God (if he did exist) would bely this statement of yours. You choose a side to argue, then you have chosen. So why choose one thing over another? Does your lack of belief depend upon God being the 'bad guy'? Why else would you (you in general) cling so hard to it?

  Not at all, but we do like to point out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. Since you are arguing the loving, squishy god, we are using the exact same reference to show you that we could also argue the brutal, murderous god. And then you say but you don't accept that---because it's not how you understand things---and we point out that anyone that DOES accept it has just as valid a standing as you do.

  We don't believe in that god----not at all. Unfortunately, these arguments must always take place in the believer's context, especially because they generally insist on using the bible to support their points---well the parts they like anyway. It's a pretty natural reaction, since we've been forced into it, for us to also look at the bible and show you the conflicts and inconsistencies of your source.

  But you have a strange, persnickety attitude towards words, so I guess it would go easier for you if we started every single thought with the disclaimer, I don't believe in the bible, but I see an inconsistency in your reasoning from that very book-----although for most people, not you, it would simply be implied. Which is even more interesting when you claim that because Jesus didn't publicly endorse slavery, that it was okay to assume he condemned it----and he never even said a word about an issue that would tear the world apart. But it's such a problem for you when we mere humans don't preface every single comment, and every single post with the above. Astounding.
• 

  still thinking

  Once again, see above. If that were true, then non-believers (the ones i speak with here at least) would be far more neutral.

  If we were discussing this with neutral unbiased people we would be neutral, but we aren't. We are discussing it with believers who are extremely biased.
• 

  tec

  Maybe you see not believing in fairies as a 'lack of belief' in them too?

  I do. I could state non-belief if that would make you feel more comfortable. I don't mean anything different with either phrase.

  Not at all, but we do like to point out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. Since you are arguing the loving, squishy god, we are using the exact same reference to show you that we could also argue the brutal, murderous god. And then you say but you don't accept that---because it's not how you understand things---and we point out that anyone that DOES accept it has just as valid a standing as you do.

  I am still asking the question that has yet to be answered. You don't have to beleive, to be able to answer the question.

  How and why do you ignore the verses that are in tune with the Truth of Christ... to focus instead upon the ones that are in contradiction? What makes this a more (or just as) valid understanding, when Christ is the truth? Because you HAVE to ignore Christ, to accept some of the things written in the OT. You also have to ignore the verses that ARE in line with Christ and His teachings.

  So how is that 'as' valid an understanding? What makes it so, for someone who professes to follow Christ?

  Unfortunately, these arguments must always take place in the believer's context

  Then in the believers' context... explain how the position you always defend is as valid as the other? What makes it so?

  But you have a strange, persnickety attitude towards words

  I like to be accurate, yes. Not being so leads to... well... contradictions and misunderstandings. Like the ones in the bible. If that makes me persnickety, then I am persnickety.

  so I guess it would go easier for you if we started every single thought with the disclaimer, I don't believe in the bible

  I don't need that. I don't think it. But if you are arguing in the believer's context, then you'll be asked questions from the believer's context.

  If you state that God is this, this, and this... then you'll be challenged on it. Even if only from the pov of the bible.

  If we were discussing this with neutral unbiased people we would be neutral, but we aren't. We are discussing it with believers who are extremely biased.

  As are the non-believers who argue in the 'believer's context'.

  (I state openly that i am biased about the bible... totally... and all in accordance with Christ and the truth He taught. Christ first, anything else second.)

  Peace,

  tammy