OK believers, time to put up or shut up...

by Gregor 238 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  beksbks

  I'd like to address a couple of comments from the first several pages of this thread. Sorry, I am unwilling to go back through for specifics, as it's been a few days, and many more pages. As to the idea put forth, that there is no real morality without belief, I disagree. Moral principals or rules of conduct can certainly be agreed upon without the belief in god. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that Unbelievers’ are actually the more virtuous folks, because their decency is not based on fear of punishment, nor desire for a reward. That is christianity in a nutshell. It's not about being good for the sake of being good, it's about fear of hell, or hope of heaven.

  Second, this entire thread is just that, one thread. What if I, as a non believer, peppered my daily conversation, say posts, with references to evolution and atheism? The christians would surely have posted an equivalent thread long ago. But because christianity is generally accepted, and also generally accepted as "good" we non believers will hear references to the lord and his grace everywhere we turn, and be expected to actually appreciate it.

  Auldsoul,

  Apparently professor, you did not realize that my comments were directly related to an earlier post.

  "give yourself" to God. It sounds primitive, and it can be, but I think it`s also beautiful.

  Therein lies one of my beefs with christians. This idea takes personal responsibility out of the equation. Just believe, just have faith, and god will take care of the rest. I'm so glad there are scientists and researchers out there, that were unable to take this path. Look at the progresses we have made in medicine alone. Yes, we have also managed to discover/create plenty of harmful things too, but as we move along, we learn how to address that as well. Or we will, when the Bush administration ends

  My point was that when you "Let go and let god" you are essentially bowing out of this world and the responsibility to try to take care of it and its inhabitants. There have been many scientific breakthroughs other than the enormous ones you refer to. I cannot argue the god worship that those scientists participated in; I've never thought to ask. You might at least thank me, for giving you the opportunity to see yourself talk.
• 

  AuldSoul

  My point was that when you "Let go and let god" you are essentially bowing out of this world and the responsibility to try to take care of it and its inhabitants. There have been many scientific breakthroughs other than the enormous ones you refer to. I cannot argue the god worship that those scientists participated in; I've never thought to ask. You might at least thank me, for giving you the opportunity to see yourself talk.

  So...just so we are clear...what discoveries were you referring to that were made by scientists who are non-believers?

  Also, "give yourself to God" does not mean stop thinking, or stop planning, or stop caring—it does mean recognition that we don't have all the answers and being content with atht state until we do have all the answers. If you thought it did, you have some really twisted misconceptions about what believers believe. I knew which post you were referring to, I was addressing the fact that you seemed to think "Let go and let God" is somehow ubiquitous among believers and an essential requirement for belief in God. It is neither.

  That is christianity in a nutshell.

  I strongly disagree with your prejudicial generalization of christianity. I daresay you would react strongly if I classified you in broadly general terms as nothing more than a hopeless, purposeless captive to the experiments of your genetic code. That is, after all, unbelievers in a nutshell, right? Of course not, and your statement is no more correct.

  AuldSoul
• 

  beksbks

  So...just so we are clear...what discoveries were you referring to that were made by scientists who are non-believers?

  Again, I never mentioned specific discoveries or scientists, beievers or not.

  I daresay you would react strongly if I classified you in broadly general terms as nothing more than a hopeless, purposeless captive to the experiments of your genetic code

  This reminds me of an experience I once had. I would never want to try to talk someone out of their beliefs. When I left the JWs, I was determined to say nothing to them when they came to my door, other than "no thank you, I'm not interested". But as you know, that is unacceptable to them. I finally began to realize, that this religion is harmful, and if they cared to press the issue then I have a right to express my opinion. I went round and round with a CO that came to my door one day, and finally in complete frustration, he stepped back pointed his finger at me, and said "You know what I think of when I talk to people like you? YOU HAVE NO HOPE!?" I had never raised my voice, and had said no thank you several times (actually a couple of kids were there first, and when they heard I was an ex, they ran and got this guy). I had merely quoted from HIS bible, and pointed out my concerns with the JWs. This man became so upset and frustrated that I was using his own training against him, that he basically, angrily, resigned me to eternal death. To me that is a perfect example of christian "love". Why was he so anxious to save me? Because he was such a good kind loving person? Or because he enjoys his perception of superiority?
• 

  AuldSoul

  As to the idea put forth, that there is no real morality without belief, I disagree.

  I didn't see anyone promote that concept, but perhaps I just missed it. In case you are getting confused by a statement I made, I stated that there is no scientifically objective morality without the capacity to know the eventual outcome. Not only the short term, but the long term outcomes of any action or inaction.

  That isn't addressing belief or disbelief at all...in case you were thinking of this remark. It is an objective fact when viewed from the perspective of the Scientific Method, you cannot scientifically demonstrate that any given action is better or worse (moral judgment) than any other given action, because you cannot know the eventual outcomes of either, say 200,000 years into the future. Incapacity to observe the results of an action or inaction automatically prevents determination of even a more likely harmful or beneficial course to take.

  But as I am addressing what you wrote, I submit that any subjective, unprovable viewpoint is automatically a belief. It doesn't fit any other category. Therefore all morality is based in belief. There is no morality without belief. Belief in God is not required, but belief is required. Belief that one course of action will result in a better outcome than another, with no evidence whatsoever to support that belief.

  BTW, I am not a professor. I am a thinking, reasoning, human. Your digs at me only detract from your own arguments.

  AuldSoul
• 

  beksbks

  Look Auld, I don't pretend to be a scholar. I'm just a gal who is by nature curious, and also quite soft hearted. I post my opinions with either humor, or passion. You appear to be sparring, looking for the intellectual upper hand.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I'm glad you recognize that you weren't specific. You were generalizing...again.

  So, since you weren't specific, I asked for specifics. I also included some examples of advances that I am certain did not fit your stereotype and examples of scientists and researchers who did not as well. You attempted to use "I wasn't specific..." as a defense against the fact that you had no clue what you were talking about when you wrote this:

  Just believe, just have faith, and god will take care of the rest. I'm so glad there are scientists and researchers out there, that were unable to take this path. Look at the progresses we have made in medicine alone.

  A statement that can mean anything, means nothing. Here are my specific questions for clarification of your non-specific post:

  (1) take what "path?"

  (2) what scientists and researchers were "unable to take this path" and how do you know they were unable to do so?

  (3) what progress has been made in "medicine alone" by scientists and researchers who were "unable to take this path" and how do you know these advances were possible because they were "unable to take this path?"

  I'm not looking for the intellectual upper hand, I am looking for your substantiation of your statement. Presumably, if you are a non-believer you have developed certain prejudices against believers that showed themselves in that post. It certainly came across as prejudicial and founded on nothing beyond conjecture. If you make a claim on a discussion board it is not out of line to ask for the basis for the claim. That's what I asked for...am asking for. If you have none, fine.

  You said it, presumably it is a belief of yours, what do you base your belief on?

  AuldSoul
• 

  beksbks

  One more question in general to those who spoke of free will. Is Cancer free will?
• 

  beksbks

  Hypocrates believed in Jesus?? But you know what Auld? I don't care enough to spend any time looking for specific examples for YOU, nor am I worried about the actual answer to the question of belief. I am perfectly comfortable with my belief/non belief. Maybe you should read a few scriptures, calm yourself down, and hit the hay.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I don't care enough to spend any time looking for specific examples for YOU

  Since Hippocrates was Greek and born about 460 years before Christ, no, he wasn't a Christian. But, neither was Pliny. Or Aristotle. Or Archimedes. But there is evidence they believed in deity and interaction between deity and humans. Belief in spiritual things doesn't prevent (or inhibit) discovery. Certain religions prevent discovery, but that is not the fault of belief or believers.

  I wouldn't have wasted either of our time if I knew that establishing/defending your statements wasn't something that mattered to you. I apologize for any part I might have played in getting you in a bad mood or throwing a wet blanket on your evening. It was unintentional.

  In my experience discussion boards aren't for unsupported viewpoint launching, they are for discussing expressed opinions and viewpoints. It was that experience that led to my responses and requests for substantiation of your claims. Now that I know you don't care whether you explain why you believe certain things, I won't bother asking you for an explanation in the future.

  I hope you have a pleasant evening, and a better than usual Monday.

  AuldSoul
• 

  beksbks

  Once again, I will remind you, that the original comment that you took issue with, had to do with the "let go and let god" attitude of christians. Even Galileo couldn't do that.

  Also, my opinion of christians is from PERSONAL experience on many levels. You have not changed my perception at all, but rather have strenghened it.

  Belief in spiritual things doesn't prevent (or inhibit) discovery.

  But it CAN as you yourself stated. Answer this question for me. Have all scientific discovery been made by believers?

  Now that I know you don't care whether you explain why you believe certain things, I won't bother asking you for an explanation in the future.

  You have continually ignored my initial observation. Why would I care to explain yet again? ( Although I did in the first sentence of this post)