Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slacker911

  I have a couple questions for everyone...and a few of the posts in this thread have prompted it...

  Theists are often charging that atheists, or even those that just believe in evolution (theistic or not), are without morals or believe what they believe in order to accomodate their desire to have no moral obligation. If that argument can be made, though I personally find it abhorant to think that there is a relationship between the two, can not another argument be made?

  Can an atheist, or someone who feels they have no obligation to God, rightly argue that many, if not most, theists only have their sense of morals because of what they feel they are going to get out of their relationship, or belief, in God? How often do we hear the question, both here and other places, "Are you saved?" Or how often do we hear the prediction that "if you dont change, you are going to hell"? Or how many people feel that if they are good to others they will go to Heaven? Or live forever in Paradise?

  It seems to me that the argument, based on those statements, which we all hear daily, and serve as the backbone of so many arguments for belief in God/religion, actually shows that the true moral fiber of many of the religious is actually immoral and self centered. I would say that the vast majority of theists maintain their beliefs, and flaunt their moral standards, at least partially based on what they are going to get out of it. What do you think? If one argument can be made, certainly the other can as well. And I would say that, of the two, the blatant self centered hypocrisy of the latter makes it far worse.
• 

  SickofLies

  I agree, lovelylil. Although, to be fair the argument probably started with religious zealots accusing scientists (and those merely interested in science) of poisoning the minds of young people.

  Exactly! This issue isn't if God exists, the issue is really about is science correct. Creationist make crazy claims that science has gone terribly amiss and the whole universe is only 10,000 years old at most. They claim that the direction science is taking is only meant to take away from God instead of being a course in true scientific inquiry. The motives, evidence and teachings of all branches of modern science are put into question and are critizied because some people feel it threatens their world view about how the universe came into existance.

  These are the arguments I have a problem with, if you want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster thats fine, buy why put down science??
• 

  LittleToe

  Slacker:Actually few folks use this excuse about atheists. The JWs use it regualrly, however.
• 

  slacker911

  LittleToe,

  I wish I could agree with that. However, the JW's have borrowed that argument from other religions, as they have many of their doctrines. I would check out the feedback section of the TalkOrigins.org archive for all the proof that you need.
• 

  LittleToe

  You'll note that I didn't say that noone uses it. I've heard it other places, too. But generally it's not a topic of conversation, IMHO.
• 

  lovelylil

  SOL,

  Some who believe in God have a balanced view of evolution. I personally believe the earth is billions of years old. I am probably in the minority on this though as far as Christians in general. I believe that Science supports evidence of an itelligence behind the design of the universe. I realize that some do not wish to say it is God who is behind it. And that is o.k. with me personally.

  I found some interesting facts about man while doing some deep bible research. It seems that in the OT, not every generation was listed from the time of Adam, onward. This is becuase for one, it would take up way too much room. And secondly, the geneologies where put in place to point to the lineage of the Messiah. Some generations too far in the past would not matter. It is only the ones closest to King David that mattered, as Christ came from Davids line. I don't know if anyone has discovered this before. Some Bible Scholars theorize that about three to five generations in between each one that is listed was left out. So, if this is true, the implication is that Man is much older than most creationists realize. And that Scientists and Anthropologists are closer to the true age of man. I will see if I can find some information on this and post it on the forum. Give me a few days.

  I think that most God believers have not really looked into the evidence that Science gives because they feel it will weaken their faith or position. If they do look at it, they do so with a closed mind. I remember once telling my hubby that "adaptation" is a form of evolution and before I could explain what I meant, he nearly took my head off yelling about how all evolution is ungodly.

  God and Science CAN be reconciled together and I encourage my children to look to science for proof of Gods existance or the intelligence behind it. To just dismiss it without investigating makes most Christians seem closed minded and uneducated.
• 

  lovelylil

  Here is a good link with information about the creationist/evolutionist arguement that mentions the missing generations. I know I have more info. Will post at a later date:

  http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm
• 

  AuldSoul

  I have a couple questions for everyone...and a few of the posts in this thread have prompted it...

  I can see where either argument could be validated by certain evidence.

  My main question is this: since the concept of morality can quickly be demonstrated to be objectively unsubstantiable from a scientific perspective, and easily proven subjective—no matter what parameters are set up—by simply appealing to the concept of unknown and unknowable future impacts, on what does one base their personal, subjective concept of morals?

  There is a sense of right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice, that arises in almost every human. Why? What is that determination based on? Certainly (provably) not objective reality. So, what is the basis and why it this basic nature so ubiquitous? Why would someone who doesn't believe in deity care one whit whether they are perceived as amoral? Mind you, I know they do care, but I don't know why. I'm not even sure they can objectively explain why.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  SickofLies

  I know they do care, but I don't know why. I'm not even sure they can objectively explain why.

  They probably don't care in reality, but when attack by arguments like these they defend themselves because of the obvious irony in them.

  1. Most all horrible inhumane acts in human history are connected to some form of religion

  2. There is no evidence to support that people who believe in God are acually morally superior than those who arn't

  3. This is simply an arugment of 'We are better than You' and is actually quite insulting and anyone would defend themselves in this situation.
• 

  SickofLies

  Interesting things to think about:

  Questions that creationist couldn't answer in scopes 'monkey' trial:

  "If there was a God that created the Univerise, which God did it?"

  "Could there be more than one God?"

  "Could that God be an evil God?"