Do you believe in God now?

by Ron1968 142 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

rem

Starscream,
No. You told me first rem, I only 'told' you back.
The funny thing is that it's clear you didn't get the point. Perhaps I was too subtle.
Actually I have no problem with your or anyone's belief in god or gods. Most of my good, intelligent friends are theists. The only thing that bugs me is when theists, who believe because of faith - which can be a beautiful thing, choose to go beyond that paradigm and claim that their beliefs have some rational foundation. That's why I'm challenging you. Oh, yeah, and you've also made severally demonstrably false claims. Can we be friends?
If you had only gone all the way and said scientists don't manufacture evidence. Because then I could have told you that the person you were referring to was yourself! You are too wiley for me though. You infer ad hom without actually making it. So clever of you rem.
You have made a positive claim, yet you have not backed it up with any facts. I'm sure there are some naughty scientists out there that manufacture evidence, but there is no conspiracy theory like you are making it out to be. The peer review process, though not perfect, goes far in weeding out the chaff. If you have some particularly aggregious examples that are still considered valid today, I'm all ears. I'm open to hearing all sides.
It seems about 50% of atheists tell me this when I say I was an atheist. Apparently the definition of an atheist to idiots like this is: Person who refuses to accept the possibility a God exists for all time and can never change their mind, but if they do they are too stupid to have ever been an atheist because atheists are smart enough to hate people who leave atheism which means since we hate that person for claiming to have been an atheist they never were an atheist and we just make up this new definition to atheist so they can't subvert our arguments as to how stupid "God people" are and we tell them they were agnostic which is not as smart as atheist.
Well, looks like I was spot on. You don't have the foggiest idea what an atheist is. I know of no atheists personally who refuse to accept the possibility of a god. Most atheists are what you would call agnostic... the question is still open since there is not enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion. But in the mean time, I don't believe in Zeus or Jehovah, or any of the other millions of man-created gods. Therefore I am an atheist. See how that works?
You don't know me. If you want to know me, take a look in the mirror and you see me 3 years ago.
LOL. You claim that I don't know you, but apparently you have the balls to assert that you know me! Pot, kettle, black?
I was an atheist. I did not believe that any god existed and actively thought there was evidence that refuted the assertion that the universe or anything in it was created by a supernatural force.
So you were a Gnostic Atheist. It's not difficult to figure out why you are now a theist. Your sense of logic was never fully formed. Gnostic Atheists are not rational because they believe there is proof against the existence of gods when there is not.
The universe does not require your hypothetical unicorns for it to exist. It is a completely arbitrary whim of yours to compare the creation to your hypothetical unicorn turd.
Ah but it does, because this Unicorn created the universe. Now disprove it.
But in the end you sound like a cool kid. Just keep your options open.
Amen,

Life is too complex to believe in evolution. Everytime I watch a tv program about evolution. Their explanations show there is an intelligent being behind it behind all this. So believing in God is more beneficial to me that way. I don't see other way or explanation to why are we on earth?
This is why I stated that you do not seem to understand Evolution and science in general. If you get your evolution education by watching tv, then that is a problem, and I would expect a scientist to know better. Also, you have been relying on long refuted philosophies such as Paley and Pascal to support your belief. You stated that you believe having a being above all others makes sense, though this belief turns into an infinite regress.
I know there are many scientists who believe in god and that is great. We need people of all types. But when people try to go beyond faith to explain their irrational beliefs they open themselves up to questioning.
Take care!
rem
starScream

the bradster:
Actually, YOU are the one that believes humans came from "mud" (clay, dust, etc.)! Isn't that what Genesis says? The irony...
There is no irony. Genesis says that God created man in his image. Abiogenesis basically states that life popped up out of the mud or "soup" (with a few lightning bolts and such).
rem,
The funny thing is that it's clear you didn't get the point. Perhaps I was too subtle.
The funny thing is you forgot to make your point.
The only thing that bugs me is when theists, who believe because of faith - which can be a beautiful thing, choose to go beyond that paradigm and claim that their beliefs have some rational foundation.
I doubt that is the only thing that bugs you about theists. What bugs me about atheists is that they think their naturalistic beliefs are more rational than general beliefs in creation. I'm not going to argue about it right now.
Oh, yeah, and you've also made severally demonstrably false claims.
you mean this(?) :
You have made a positive claim, yet you have not backed it up with any facts. I'm sure there are some naughty scientists out there that manufacture evidence,
why do I need facts? You are admitting what I claimed.
but there is no conspiracy theory like you are making it out to be.
You just made up a conspiracy theory. You are accusing me of perpetuating one when I did not and wasn't even thinking that. Given your paranoia on the subject... perhaps there is something there I should look into.
The peer review process, though not perfect, goes far in weeding out the chaff.
When I was a student in public school I was never taught why evolution or abiogenesis were true. The problems with evolutionary and abiogenesis theory were not brought up by the teachers or the curriculum. Both are taught as simple truth and evolutionary theory is used to explain the most amazing specializations. Naturalism is being promoted religiously in schools. I wasn't around when they used manufactured evidence to convince people evolution is true. Some of what was shown like "lucy" I am currently looking into. They aren't trying to prove to students that evolution is true though. They have learned that they don't need to do that. Kids will believe what they are told. They are just saying it is true, teaching links and ancestry. I went through it. I know what I was told and how I was told it.
Can we be friends?
If you want to be my friend quit acting like you are smarter, more logical or rational than I am. I respect humility and I only make friends with people I respect.
If you have some particularly aggregious examples that are still considered valid today, I'm all ears.
I can't say any of it is purely authentic. There is so much spinning and doctoring I honestly can't comment on the authenticity of today's specimens. I will give it more attention. You admit yourself though that there have been deceptions which perhaps effected peoples faith in evolution.
You don't have the foggiest idea what an atheist is.
Apparently I didnt know what a gnostic atheist was. I know WTF an atheist is.
"all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods." -- agnosticism/atheism with Austin Cline
If your assertion is correct then Austin Cline's foggiest doesn't meet your requirements either. I thought you pulled the gnostic atheist term out of your butt. You should know that "gnostic atheist" is a more obscure term than "strong atheist." You are wrong to say that I was not an atheist on the basis that I was also a strong atheist.
I know of no atheists personally who refuse to accept the possibility of a god.
You may not know any but they exist.
LOL. You claim that I don't know you, but apparently you have the balls to assert that you know me!
You claim to be an atheist. All I did was agree with that and say I was like you, an atheist. You seemed to be saying that I was always irrational and never an atheist or a real rational atheist. My balls are of normal proportions in this matter, sir.
It's not difficult to figure out why you are now a theist. Your sense of logic was never fully formed.
You insist that I am the pot and you are the kettle. Your sense of logic seems to exclude philosphy. A fully developed sense of logic includes philosophy.
Gnostic Atheists are not rational because they believe there is proof against the existence of gods when there is not.
Then by your own words you are irrational if you try to deny the Christian God because you would be demonstrating gnostic atheism.
Ah but it (the universe) does (require unicorn), because this Unicorn created the universe. Now disprove it.
Mehr elitar Atheist Kuhmist. You compared the belief in Unicorns to belief in God. You have changed your analogy. You now say God is a Unicorn. This is a completely different assertion than someone saying a creator to the universe (God) exists. You are accepting the existence of God and saying that the creator is a unicorn. You are creating a religion around a certain creator instead of rationalizing (away?) the existence of a creator. You are comparing the logic of your religion to the logic of theism. They do not compare.
But in the end you sound like a cool kid. Just keep your options open.
I'm not cool and I'm not a kid. I just sound, look, act, walk and talk like one. Just keep your options open.
I can be your friend if you stop trying to elevate yourself.
Oxnard Hamster

Yet, confronted with a lack of evidence it would seem the default position would be to suspend belief, hence agnosticism is the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint.

Oh please.... How is suspending belief the default position? This is just a cheap cop out to try to prove that atheists are intellectually superior to theists.
And maybe the evidence is wrong. It's happened before. And these scientists and theorists that come up with this stuff are humans, who are prone to mistakes.
If you want to put all your trust into that, and think it makes you more logical, then by all means have at it.
onacruse

Yet, confronted with a lack of evidence it would seem the default position would be to suspend belief, hence agnosticism is the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint.

Oh please.... How is suspending belief the default position? This is just a cheap cop out to try to prove that atheists are intellectually superior to theists.

Oxnard, I totally agree.
The only "out" I see here is to emphasize "it would seem..." In that case, as a personal opinion, fine. Otherwise, to simply assert that agnosticism is "the most scientifically and logically correct viewpoint" is just plain and simple crap. Who in heaven or hell or on earth has such insight and authority as to say what my "default position" should be?
Craig
StinkyPantz
Oxnard Hamster

I like nachos.
StinkyPantz

Ox-Ham:
By the way, did you know that every time you ridicule a Christian, you are only proving us right?
How so? The Koran says that their people will be ridiculed and persecuted too; and that is what is happening to them. Is their holy book also inspired?
Oxnard Hamster

Besides, if you admit that God can't be proven nor disproven, then how is one view superior? That's a contradiction.
onacruse

Oxnard, and SP...I'm jumping into chat right now...if you'd care to join me?
Oxnard Hamster

Roger that.

Do you believe in God now?

Share this