Does Anyone Still Believe in God?

by LaurenM 447 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Heaven

  Wow, this thing took off in a crazy kinda way. I had to claw back through to see where I last posted. And there it is way back on pg 23.
  

  prologos said:Does anyone still believe in the Goddess?" Heaven, or rather "Does anyone already believe in the Goddess?, because the goddesses of the past mythologies are as pathetic as their male counterparts. so: look into the option 8) the deists. but:the reason for the thinking of god as a male , consider the bower birds. The male builds the nest first, then the female can do her grand work. wt doctrine has it, that the quality of love is exemplified by the male face of those freaky four faced creatures of the chariot. I disagree with that, I would pick the female faces in my life, for god to be embodying love. but to be original, the creator would have to make the foundation, the universe fist, for our love, the female, nourishing prerogative to flourish in. and. Males staring at their nipples should be reminded where their priorities lie, where they came from.

  prologos, that was a rather odd post but to answer your question, yes, present day Pagans, Witches, and Hindus do believe in both Gods and Goddesses. The ancients also believed in both Gods and Goddesses. Asherah was Yahweh's consort. But the ancients decided to turn her into a staff of wood or the Tree of Life depending on which way you want to believe. I'm not exactly sure why Asherah was done away with. It was probably to do with the emerging ancient ideal of there being only one true God and it was decided to be Yahweh (definitely NOT a Goddess). To eliminate the Goddess, made everything unbalanced. The entire Bible is a monument to this as are the present day religions. The Gods and Goddesses were the male and female of various different natural phenomenon in ancient times. Luckily, our present day knowledge has surpassed the need to attribute known, defined, and understood natural processes to magical invisible beings.
  

  I have oft times felt that the entire Bible was really written only for men. Right up front it states humans were made in the image of god. And then the whole Bible is about the male version of god. I am a woman and cannot relate my physical being to anything male. If I were a believer, I'd relate far more to a goddess. I am certainly not made in the image of something male. Bear in mind, the social system of Patriarchy was adopted well before the Bible or idea of Jesus. This was a system brought in to attempt to bring stability to ancient warring Middle Eastern desert tribes. Patriarchy was not a system adopted everywhere on Earth at that time but it definitely influenced the Bible.
  

  stuff said: Why on earth is that a problem to a believer who's god concept is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or so far from human: it's intervention in human affairs is not to be expected?

  Believers who think god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient have made up their own version of god. It is not the one that is presented by the main religions of today. Which is rather the point isn't it? In my discussions with various believers, they all have their own rendition of God. The only conclusion from that is God is a construct of the human imagination.
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  Lol poor prologos....yes most know how to change the number of posts per page and thus reduce the number of pages. It wasnt a complaint, it was an observation on length, that is to say total number of posts.
• 

  prologos

  I have oft times felt that the entire Bible was really written only for men. Heaven

  you are so broad*** minded, the wt teaches the bible was written only for the anointed. there are 4 billion men, but only 7 confirmed of them.

  *** in the sense of broadway. not the ladies on it.

  apart what our opinions are, what nature, the reality we live in really teaches us about the maker of it all.

  8) Deist.
• 

  stuffwotifink

  Asking people to define a god so it can be discussed or debated and then just dismissing any silent or absent god as "irrelevant", "worthless" or "pointless", is empty. (argumentum ad lapidem)
  This could be avoided by simply giving a justification for the dismissal

  No one is asking you to define god that way, it's simply the best any believer has been able to do. Hardly my fault.

  Are you missing the point on purpose?
  Once they have "done their best" and posited a silent or absent god, dismissal as "assholegod" or "pointlessgod", is no real response at all. Certainly no disproof.
  Doesn't even seem to be trying all that hard to even look like a real reply...
  

  
  Dismissing someone's god belief as "irrelevant", is no rebuttal. Argumentum ad lapidem.
  Dismissing a god as an asshole is also no disproof. Sounds awkwardly like an appeal to emotion (It is after all the only reason offered - and if it is in fact the reason for dismissal - IS an appeal to emotion.).
  
  But as I said, this could be avoided simply by providing a justification of your dismissal, it wouldn't even need to be a good one. After all - it is you asking people to define their god. It is just dishonest to then respond as you are doing.
  
  When Kate Wild said
  

  No you haven't been able to prove to me with evidence that a creator was not responsible for guiding evolution and especially the formation of enantiomers.
  
  

  You responded
  

  It's been proved, just not to you because you've not bothered to learn enough to understand the evidence. The problem is not lack of proof presented to you, it's lack of effort to understand it on your part.
  

  No. Untrue. You over step yourself.
  It has been shown that a god is not in any way necessary.
  There is an extreme difference. (Unless you care to detail the "Proof" that some god didn't guide things? Sounds impossible to me, I don't know why you'd claim to have done so.)
  
  Anyway, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time.
  Lack a belief... lol.
  
  http://skepticexaminer.com/2015/02/why-the-lack-a-belief-response-is-problematic/
  
  Worth a read, if you are a Lacktheist,.
  
• 

  Heaven

  prologos said: you are so broad*** minded, the wt teaches the bible was written only for the anointed. there are 4 billion men, but only 7 confirmed of them.

  *** in the sense of broadway. not the ladies on it.

  I was gonna say I'm a broad (as in woman) but not THAT broad (as in wide)... um, but anyway...

  Oh right, yes, the, <cough> annointed. I find it interesting that they still hand out litter-a-trash that offers free Bible studies. If the Bible was only written for the annointed, why are their membership studying it then and why do they still offer free Bible Studies to Joe or Jane Public? This makes no sense.
  
• 

  Twitch

  stuffwotifink

  Excellent post. Thank you for providing a truly rational and honest response to the question and topic.

  2. Theists will claim that skepticism or atheism is its own “religion” or belief system.
  

  But some skeptics/atheists respond in a different way. Some think that even acknowledging that they hold a belief is too much. In order to avoid the charge of “having a belief system”, some will claim to merely “lack a belief” and therefore don’t have a belief or belief system at all. This is a mistake. This will very quickly come back around to bite us on the ass. All a theist has to do is get you to admit that you do in fact believe that, say, Joseph Smith was a con man, or that Mormonism is false, or that Jesus was not God in the flesh, etc. Once the skeptic/atheist admits of having better evidence against the theistic claim, this shows the presence of a mental belief of the negation of that claim, and the “lack of belief” position is thereby undermined.

  It is not too much to admit that we hold beliefs about the world. If we are going to actively fight against primitive superstitions and mythical beliefs, and if we think we can show good evidence or argument for holding our skeptical position, we’d better also believe it.

  An excerpt from the link provided and worthy of consideration for the atheist position. Your input is not a waste of time, though I fear the emotion of posters with regard to honestly discussing the position will obscure any real discussion. A shame really.
• 

  Viviane

  Are you missing the point on purpose?

  Of course not. You just need to make point before I can miss it.

  Once they have "done their best" and posited a silent or absent god, dismissal as "assholegod" or "pointlessgod", is no real response at all. Certainly no disproof.
  Doesn't even seem to be trying all that hard to even look like a real reply...

  
  

  It's an apt description of their deity. If you don't like that, well, as I said, try making a point next time.

  Dismissing someone's god belief as "irrelevant", is no rebuttal. Argumentum ad lapidem.
  Dismissing a god as an asshole is also no disproof. Sounds awkwardly like an appeal to emotion (It is after all the only reason offered - and if it is in fact the reason for dismissal - ISan appeal to emotion.).

  An appeal to emotion? Perhaps you should understand what "making a point" is before you go all in and try to make one. You certainly aren't capable of building a cogent argument if this is what you are going with. Making a point is, at this point, a long way off lofty goal for you.
  
  

  But as I said, this could be avoided simply by providing a justification of your dismissal, it wouldn't even need to be a good one. After all - it is you asking people to define their god. It is just dishonest to then respond as you are doing.

  Yeah, people that don't understand logic, critical thinking, evidence or reason keep asking for that no matter how much you keep getting it. What makes you think you're going to grasp anything the 100th time around?

  No. Untrue. You over step yourself.

  Like many fallen before you, you begin your battle with willful ignorance.

  It has been shown that a god is not in any way necessary.
  There is an extreme difference. (Unless you care to detail the "Proof" that some god didn'tguide things? Sounds impossible to me, I don't know why you'd claim to have done so.)

  Well, it's clear you've not bothered to learn any of the debate, so willful ignorance it is!

  Anyway, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time.
  Lack a belief... lol.

  Well, no. You've been exposed to quality higher thinking. You're only wasting your time if you choose to ignore it.

  http://skepticexaminer.com/2015/02/why-the-lack-a-belief-response-is-problematic/
  Worth a read, if you are a Lacktheist,.

  Why am I in no way surprised that you linked to an article that showed exactly the same poor quality of thinking you demonstrated?
• 

  Viviane

  An excerpt from the link provided and worthy of consideration for the atheist position. Your input is not a waste of time, though I fear the emotion of posters with regard to honestly discussing the position will obscure any real discussion. A shame really.

  I would be embarassed to make such juvenile arguments as Stuff and that article. The real shame is the lack of education they have but *thnk* they know what they are talking about.
• 

  stuffwotifink

  Twitch
  

  Thanks. I don't even have a flippin' god belief of my own [I'm an agnostic]. But it just seems like mostly a bunch of either, dishonest or ill informed, communication to me. (I'm not even saying it is, just that it seems so, to me... A scrabble to win a debate that's not even happening and to beat a dead horse that nobody's even trying to ride)

  It's boring repeating points that people quite intelligent enough to understand, are pretending have not been made. [Take vivs LOLtastic response above, a perfect example... "U r dum so i iz rite"]

  You may enjoy the youtube videos of the guy I posted before. He was raised a jdub by an unbaptised mother, but he's a philosophy something or other, I forget what.
  He's a strong atheist, but it intellectually honest and there are some good exchanges in the youtube comments where he is challenged on his opinions... and responds... Honestly.

  Anyways, thanks for the shoutout. I'm done here.
  
• 

  Twitch

  I would be embarassed to make such juvenile arguments as Stuff and that article. The real shame is the lack of education they have but *thnk* they know what they are talking about.

  Anyone else have an opinion or care to discuss?

  Anyways, thanks for the shoutout. I'm done here

  As I said, a shame but understandable. I know where you're coming from and admire such an approach.