slimboyfat

Joined

• started 538 topics
• posted 17,592 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  You are very clearly changing the goal posts.

  Your first post claimed the Bible should supply useful information not available to people at the time.

  Failing to give any good reason why God should meet this standard you have set, instead you talk about the Bible being written by ignorant goat herders. (Familiar new atheist trope)

  If you are not willing to back up your original assertion that the Bible should contain useful information not known at the time. Where is the justification for the new assertion that God could not inspire a book that conforms to a contemporary conception of the world?

  You have asserted God would not do that. What is your evidence?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am asking a perfectly straightforward question. You said for example:

  The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.

  I said this was an example of your preference and asked why should God satisfy your preference.

  You responded it was nothing to do with your preference, but that it's what the God of Jesus "by his own words" must be like, if he exists.

  So the simple question is: where does the God of Jesus promise to be a God who provides "useful information that people could not have known at the time"?

  Very specific question. Any chance of an answer instead of insult and obfuscation?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  The Bible acknowledges a world with predators and suffering, I don't know where in the Bible it promises clear and specific prophecy, or scientific and ethical insights ahead of its time. And there are parts of the Bible that describe God as acting and answering humans at his own choosing and as he sees fit.

  In particular the idea that the Bible should be, in some sense, "ahead of its time" seems to be a very culturally conditioned view of the sacred text, situated within a Protestant/enlightenment conception of progress, and what the sacred text is and should be like in relation to it. I don't know if the text itself that promises this.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Why could God not have created the world as it is, the Bible as it is, and answer prayers as he sees fit? I understand you would prefer that God made a world without predators, a Bible with clear prophecy, and prayers with consistent answers. But beyond mere preference, what has this actually got to do with the existence or otherwise of God? Can't God be God as he chooses to be God rather than how you would choose him to be?

  What is your actual argument?
  
• 
  11

  How many JW's believe to their last breath . .

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can easily believe that thousands did all through the watchtowers glory years but especially after '95 the whole thing has been unravelling.

  kidding yourself to maintain family relationships and social networks is *somewhat* understandable in life but on your deathbed?.

  i think the demographic for jw's may actually get younger as time goes on.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think there is a lot of disbelief among JWs at the moment. Recent conversations I have had surprise me how much many JWs question these days. I think JWs are in a pretty vulnerable position right now. A few factors leading to increased doubts: bad publicity over abuse; stupid doctrinal changes such as overlapping generation; the GB making fools of themselves on the TV; many indications of organisational decline; 1914 getting more and more incredible with passage of time; increasing numbers of anointed when they should be going down; lack of substance to meetings and magazines these days; and, not to be underestimated: the secularising trend in society in general having its effect on JWs.

  Having said all that, I think it's worth bearing in mind that belief/disbelief are not often, if ever, discrete binaries. I feel this anyway, in relation to myself: that I have experienced a variety of stages between belief and doubt, and one side never fully succeeds in defeating the other. It's true that JWs may more frequently have doubts these days. Unbelievers can also have their "doubts". It's a strange person who doesn't, no matter what their ideological position.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Natural laws are themselves part of the things that exist. So how can they be within themselves or explain themselves?

  Uniquely miraculous in the true sense of a miracle being something outside of nature's laws
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Why does anything exist at all? That's the central mystery/miraculous core.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am not sold on the miraculous/natural distinction.

  After all what may have seemed "miraculous" may have a "natural" explanation as a result of advances in technology.

  Talking to someone in another country would have seemed miraculous centuries ago.

  The things God is said to have done may seem similarly miraculous, yet have natural explanations we are not aware of.

  In fact the one thing I would truly reserve the term "miraculous" for, as perhaps undeconstrucable, is the very fact of existence itself. Since what natural law could be invoked as explanation for the existence of everything, including the laws of nature themselves?
• 
  102

  Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

  by kpop in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

  after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

  " shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  So no example of a distortion then? Just more general accusations, kicking dust in the air.

  And how hypocritical is that: when have you ever presented my views on postmodernism (or anything else) in terms that I would recognise? All I get is insults, and mockery as above.
• 
  102

  Any atheists here? Have you come to terms with your new reality?

  by kpop in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.

  after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.

  " shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Like what? Just one will suffice.