Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • GoneAwol

    The Rebel: "The world is full of science books that contradict past science, yet they all attempted to explain the world around us and like the bible we're considerd truth at the time of writing"

    Science writers update books as more information becomes available. Somethings are changed as we get closer to the truth. Thats what science is about, and peer reviews along with experiments ensure the truth is eventually learned.

    The bible, well, that just contradicts itself many many times over with no peer reviews and no chance to put anything right. It is what it is. Absolute rubbish.

  • The Rebel
    The Rebel

    GoneAwol " The bible.....Absolute rubbish"

    The Rebel (A) Playing devils advocate, try telling the super pious religious followers that.

    I say this because " whilst science books can update books as more information becomes available" and whilst I agree this is true we also have new versions or maybe I should write new " visions" of the bible. As witnesses our updated bible came through the Watchtower, and other religions also have updated information from the bible .So in away religion like science does try to get closer to the truth, with updated more modern information. This is what happened with 1914 and the generation change.

    My point is it's wrong to believe all scientists are squeeky clean both in motive or thinking despite credentials, and so whilst I appreciate my new freedom to think, I believe all thinking is limited and it's foolish not to independently think things out, without just accepting teachings from those that claim a higher authority.

    The Rebel.

  • theliberator

    "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved." - 2 Peter 2:19 ESV

    "Freethinkers" do not exist.

  • GoneAwol

    Over the years, religion changes its opinion on teachings yes, but usually its a forced change perhaps from a legal perspective ( think Bulgaria) Its not very often you have a religious leader say "sorry we got that bit wrong, this is version 2 and its much better" and they never say why a teaching has been changed, just mask it as new light.

    Science is always subject to other scientists who review whats being presented and re examine it for holes and weaknesses. When a hypotheses is presented it is tested again and again. These ideas are only kept if supported by testable evidence. The unsupportable ideas are discarded. That is the core of science.

    I completely undestand about some scientists being dishonest, especialy if they get recognition out of it, but the core methods will always find them out and they are exposed.

    I think it comes down to trust. Religion or science. I wouldnt jump off a building without a parachute. Overlapping generations. Take your pick.

  • slimboyfat
    Scientific facts are socially constructed just like other facts. True today, gone tomorrow.
  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen

    My stepping stones:

    1. My reason to believe in God: Rom 1:20, Rev.4:11: creation exists, is complex, thus God diddit.

    2. Then I read something quite logic:
      If you argue humans/earth/universe must have been created because they are so complex, then the Creator, who is also complex, must have been created too.
      If you make an exception for God, you should also accept the possibility of other complex thing/beings coming into existence without being created.

      So, my main reasons to believe in God were not so logical.
      I set out to prove to myself:
      * God exists.
      * Bible is true.
      * JW are true religion.

    3. Started with investigating age of humans on earth (there should be no evidence of humans existing before 4026BCE, right?).
      Found that JW explanation/beliefs don't make sense, and JW literature is very dishonest in quoting sources.

    4. Continued to prove to myself evolution is false, creation is true by investigating claims and evidence for both sides.
      I started with the 5-question brochure.
      My conclusion after really studying that rag:
      * JW are very dishonest liars, taking almost any quote out of context to support their beliefs.
      * Apparently no decent scholars can be found that really argue against evolution.
      * Reading the source materials mentioned in the brochure I actually found evolution makes sense.
      * No evidence for creation presented at all.

    5. Prayed many times to Jehovah for a (specific) sign: somewhere in next 4 weeks, let any random bro in the kh make an random remark to me about the beauty of creation.
      No answer.
      Guess he was to busy making experiences for the yearbook.
      Or he doesn't care about me.
      Or he doesn't exist?

    6. So by now I found no evidence for (or against) God's existence, Genesis should not be taken literally, JWorg are liars, and evidence for evolution is overwhelming (as opposed to evidence for creation, which doesn't exist).

    7. Continued investigating Noah's flood myth....also very funny.

    8. If Adam & Eve, Eden, the Flood didn't really happen like described, why did Jesus act as if it did?
      What's left of any theology without those stories? No original sin? No need for salvation?

    9. Now without my JW or Bible glasses on, I read about history of the Bible, history of religion, etc.
      Basically that lead my to conclude that Jehovah is not a bit different from all the Baals the Bible condemns.
      The Israelites believed they were all real gods; nobody would worship a god unless they think it exists.
      Any argument that anyone present that Jehovah must exist, can just as well be used to support Wodan, Zeus or FSM. How would I even know which God(s) really exist?
      And the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories and folk wisdom, like many other religious (and sometimes older) texts.

    10. My conclusion: if any God or gods exist, they are hiding quite well.
      They are not revealed through the Bible or any other human sacred text.
      I see no evidence whatsoever to believe in any God(s).
      Yes, I would like for any God to solve all our problems. Yes, I would like to live forever in health and happiness. Yes, I would like to be a millionaire.
      But wanting something doesn't make it true...

      And just as much as I do not believe in unicorns (while also an attractive concept) for lack of evidence, I do not believe in God(s) anymore, for lack of evidence.

    So, try it for yourself. Pray!
    Come one, ask God for a sign.
    But be specific, ask for something easy yet quite unlikely, and set a time limit.
    'God, please give me a sign' will just make your confirmation bias kick in, and you'll consider any random event as a sign.
    You'll get your anwer one way or the other (Mt 7:9-11; Jas 1:5, 17, 1 Joh 3:22)

    This is very easy to do, no need for any PhD.

    For those saying "that is not how God works"....just show me a way that your God does work....relying on random events and then saying "God answered my prayer", or "God knows what's best for me" or "It's not God's time"...
    Have you seen my dog? He always listens to me. When I say "come here", sometimes he comes. Sometimes he doesn't, but that's because it was not his time to act. Sometimes he even runs away when I say "come here", but that's because he listens in mysterious way. But, he always listens!"

    I have received my answer.
    And until very clear evidence pops up that any God(s) exist, I do not believe they do.

    Nobody wonders if New York City really exists. We know. We have evidence. No question about that.
    Why should we wonder about Gods(s) if they really exist?

  • cofty
    Scientific facts are socially constructed just like other facts

    Not even wrong

  • David_Jay

    First of all, if you are thinking about going down the road to atheism, you will find support from many here. You can definitely find some with advice on spiritual or religious choices too. Whichever path you are choosing, the idea is that you keep your mind open and your emotions in check as you do.

    There are a few points you will hear again and again that are not correct from those who support theism and, yes, unfortunately those who support atheism.

    1. EVOLUTION DEBUNKS THE BIBLE. Actually it debunks Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. The creation stories in the Bible are not considered literal by Jews, Catholics, and most non-Fundamentalist groups. The Bible itself doesn't claim the earth is only 6000 years old or that humans literally stole from a tree and suddenly became sinful. These are interpretations, not universal whatsoever, and aren't the views of the majority of Jews and Christians. This is why evolution is accepted by many relgious people as they don't have beliefs contrary to evolution to begin with.

    2. EVOLUTION SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It might be acceptable with mainstream Judeo-Christian theology, but the evolution model doesn't naturally fit in with theological concepts or the Biblical narrative. The two are not even concerned with the same things. Evolution explains the manner or pattern life appears to have taken on our planet ("how" things happened) whereas Judeo-Christian religion is largely unconcerned with "how." It endeavors to explain "why" things are as they are, not how they got here. Evolution is about nature, biology, but religion is about philosophical ideas and mores.

    3. THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAVE IS EVOLUTION OR THE NARRATIVE OF THE BIBLE. Not really. That is the way it was polarized by the Watchtower, but neither Judaism nor Christianity are religions based on a book. Both are religions that produced books based on their religions, but they didn't base their religions on books that were already there. The choices that Jews and Christians make regarding views of life thus often exist in a dichotomy since these religions see no scientific explanation regarding creation in its pages. The "Big Bang theory" was developed by a Catholic priest, for example. Charles Darwin was a member of the Church of England and is buried in Westminster Abbey due to his discoveries regarding the origins of life. While it is never done with ease or without problems, these groups don't remain stuck with ancient views on the world.

    4. ATHEISTS ARE INTENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF RELIGION AND USE EVOLUTION TO THIS END. While some atheists have a desire to see religion come tumbling down, they are not in the majority. Even those who don't like religion are not hateful of religious people, and most have no problem with you if you are religious and are not intent on trying to convert them. Tolerance and even good relations exist between many atheists and religious persons, and atheists have even fought for the right of freedom of religion and conscience in courts of law and in wars. Evolution is not their plan to destroy religion. Darwin died a confessed agnostic, so the theory was not even invented by an atheist. It often fits in with the views of many atheists because they tend toward a naturalistic approach and logic, but atheists are not required to accept evolution or be concerned with how life came to be in order to be atheist. Atheism is not about how we got here but about not believing in and not worshiping deities.

    There is no connection between evolution and atheism or religion either, though people who are promoting their view often claim it as their own. This shows the universality of evolution, its logic, and its reach. It makes sense to the majority of people on earth, atheist and religious. That says something for evolution, for rarely do athiests and religious people embrace the same thing. So whatever path you walk, make sure it includes an honest view of this theory of life.

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen


    Good points, as always :-)

  • OrphanCrow
    sbf: Scientific facts are socially constructed just like other facts. True today, gone tomorrow.

    All knowledge is socially constructed.

    Inherent in the scientific method, is that the process is designed to prove 'facts' wrong and to re-adjust hypotheses. It is how the scientific method works.

    On the other hand, religious thought tries to 'prove' itself right.

Share this