by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Believers feel the truth of god's existence so deeply that, as Little Toe once said to me; "I can no more doubt God's existence than yours". To that I would just say, try a little harder.
I've tried, honestly I have, but try as I might I still believe you exist. Sorry
Often—and this should come as no surprise—personal experience trumps reason or logical debate for individuals.
If I knew Sasquatch personally, I would not need evidence to believe he is real. If I was the only person who had ever seen a Fimoscolex sporadochaetus or coelacanths, I would not need further proof of their existence. If I witnessed a tornado you could no longer convince me that tornadoes aren't real even if no other human had ever seen or experienced one. There would no longer be logic sufficient to counter my experience.
On the other hand, my personal experience would not be logical cause for someone else to adopt my beliefs.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
On the other hand, my personal experience would not be logical cause for someone else to adopt my beliefs.Respectfully,
AuldSoul
no argument with the force of experience upon the conclusions of an individual, but I wonder whether this statement above goes against what we commonly assume about eye-witness testimony.
You mentioned for example if you witnessed a tornado and no one in the world ever saw one. If persons chanced upon the scene shortly after the tornado, saw the destruction and then questioned you as to what it was that caused it, your explanation and description of a tornado, would have to be given some weight, depending of course on whether a) you were a generally trustworthy person with a reputation for truthfulness, b) had no motive to lie or gain from lying and c) whether the explanation didn't defy the known laws of the universe (however, carefully note that this latter qualification is one which is subject to revision based upon the contributions of discovery).
From the above example, it is not a stretch to wonder whether the testimonies of persons who have seen divine miracles, or as in the case of Jesus, Abraham, Moses or other figures in the Bible who claim to have direct knowledge of or association with God, should be accorded similar treatment. In some cases, the weight of these persons' testimonies should be accorded some value to one who seeks a logical explanation of the universe and the God question.
-Eduardo
Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?
Fundies can come in religious flavors... or not.
If I was the first person who ever witnessed a tornado, how would I describe the experience, scientifically or anectdotally?
I have seen the descriptions of tornadoes on local television here in Georgia: "It was like a freight train, just ripped up everything in its path, came thoo (southern for "through") and tore all these trailers (mobile homes) to shreds."
Does that describe a tornado? How would someone describe something beyond their capacity to fully comprehend? Eyewitnesses often try, even now, to describe the indescribable. But the experiences you don't even see with your eyes are much tougher to communicate, and are no less real, and require no more evidence or logical proof.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I believe I can shed some light on why science and evolution is such a bad thing for (some) creationists.
Non-fundies have it made, argument-wise. They have a thing called "faith", which seems to (in their eyes) transcend everything that atheists take for granted as real, rational or logical. Faith replaces proof, and therefore no argument can touch these guys. No matter what you say, it's an automatic tie. Science is generally ok with non-fundies, because their beliefs are not tethered to such concepts as proof or reason.
Then there's the fundy. A fundy believes in the literal truth of the bible, often to the extent of believing that the earth came to be in 6 literal days. A fundy doesn't have "faith" like a non-fundy does, and therefore they can be touched with logic, which is why the believer who gets angriest during a debate is usually a fundy, because a successful argument against their beliefs makes them very uncomfortable.
One thing common to both groups, in fact all religions that I know of, is the all-or-nothing nature of the claim being made. If one little piece of that puzzle doesn't fit, then the whole thing disintegrates.
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.
I kind of like you SOL. But I would like to point out the following in regards to your points:
1. That is arguable. Certainly the most horrible crimes against fellow humans in modern times can be laid at the feet of "enlightened" atheists. Untold millions were tortured and killed in horrible ways in the Soviet Union, China, and other Communist lands. Many of the methods used easily compete with anything ever dreamed up by religonists. I am not saying that religionists are blameless by any means. But the record of atheists, from the time of the French Revolution onward, is certainly no better.
2. Your point is well taken. It is a fact that institutional religious groups like the Roman Catholic Church prove your point. When the institution sees no authority greater than itself, morals kind of go out the window. So I will concede it.
3. I will concede your third point as well with the proviso that we usually see the same argument from both sides. That is part of what makes the whole debate so irritating to everybody.
The sad thing is that the debate between theists and atheists usually draws out the fanatics on both sides and all the rules get tossed out the window. We tend to forget that how we interpret the evidence is dependent on our point of view and we start judging the other side with an oh so superior attitude. It is not just the theists who do that by any means. In virtually every discussion I've engaged in with atheists they've usually been alot faster than I've been to start the name calling and insults. THAT is why I've not been quite so fast to enter these discussions of late. After taking AlanF down a peg in one such debate on ethics, I decided that it just wasn't worth all the trouble to try and have a civil discussion. So I left the atheists to the fanatics!
Forscher
I prefer to just let believers belive, and those that don't, don't.
personal experience trumps reason or logical debate - Auld Soul
no argument with the force of experience - Oroboros21
Wrong. Throughout history, how many people have had personal experience of and can testify to the reality of Baal, Ra, Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Thor, Allah and the rest?
In addition consider this. How many people like myself are there who once had a real, heartfelt, communicative relationship with God who eventually (and painfully), came to the realisation that god was not real? If 'personal experience trumps reason [and] logic' then there can be 'no argument with the force of [my] experience' that god was nothing but an illusion.
Personal experience is a fickle, subjective thing and often unreliable.
Nic'
Personal experience is useless outside the individual that experienced it. For the individual that experiences it, it trumps logical debate and reason. But as I said before, completely useless as proof for someone else. There is no rational rgument that can overcome what I have experienced.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
