The Need To Question Atheism

by The wanderer 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  HI Vinny!

  Posts of the enormously vast magnitude like the one being described as an avalanche, may not be the best way to get your point across. It is true that such an important subject does deserve more than a few casual sentences thrown together (for the most part). However, the reader may not choose to invest 15-20 minutes reading a single posting on a fast moving thread with many posters taking part. If you found a more reasonable middle ground length (and tone) of post, I'm sure the results would be more positive. As it stands, I have been ignoring your posts when they grow to such lengths. (My reason is that I find them to be inconsiderate when they are so long, so I won't help validate them by reading them.)

  As a prime exmple of how "less is more", I invite you to examine many of the posts made by LittleToe. Some of his posts consist of one or a few brief thoughs that carry volumes of information and layers of hidden meaning.

  I hope that helps in some way.

  LDB
• 

  Handsome Dan

  Gods were created on the basis of human ignorance and imagination as it was thousands of years ago as it is today, over the centuries we've slowly and painfully gained knowledge

  of the world around us through discoveries and scientific conclusions. The door of this knowledge has just begun to open, look how far and how much we've gained in just the last century

  alone. I personally cherish the wisdom of the truth of knowledge and dealing with the reality of life as it presents itself, good or bad.. If anyone thinks that human ignorance was not prevalent

  thousands of years ago, one really needs to do some in-deft history reading or read the bible, Torah, or any ancient religious manuscripts to prove my point. The biggest difference

  that one could say between the two ideologies is one brings power, control and money and the other does absolutely nothing.
• 

  proplog2

  No one has picked up on my comment. Let me state it another way.

  By definition God is omnisicent or all knowing. This means at the very least he would have to know the location, speed and direction of every particle/wave in the universe past, present and future.

  How would you be able to determine that God knows this information if you yourself don't know the location, speed and direction of every particle/wave in the universe past, present and future. In other words you would have to be omniscient yourself to check the accuracy of the claim an entity makes that it/he/they are God.

  Without being omnisicent you could never be sure the entity really knows all or whether he is just selectively giving you particular examples from what he knows but avoids what he doesn't.

  This is why it is impossible for a human to know if an entity claiming to be God is really God. Even if he does something extraordinary you don't know that he is the only one that can do that extraordinary thing.

  You may decide to worship such a being based on his power or knowledge but that is not proof that such a being is what he claims.

  This is just one of the arguments that highlights the incoherency of belief in God.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Proplog2, your rather profound comment is both "picked up on" and appreciated. You have given me something interesting to ponder that had

  never before crossed my mind.

  Nvr
• 

  5go

  Please read the 'Huge posts' section from the how to think like a fundy website, under 'debating techniques'.

  Oh god! That brings back bad memories from my Dub days.
• 

  Vinny

  LtCmd.Lore says: "vinny, that's a pretty interesting arguement that you copied and pasted for us."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  On top of all that you then post some "debate etiquette" page link to TRY to further discredit my post and hide from what was actually written. FACTS that challenge your "no god at all had a part in what we see around us" indefensible position. I'd call that a SMOKESCREEN. If you read what was posted, it answered many questions that were presented, IN DETAIL. Your laughable attempts to accuse my of some kind of filibuster is only showing you cannot deal with the issues themselves again and again.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  BWAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
  
  
  AAAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH
  
  
  I'd call that pretty lame debating folks. Sounds more like POLITICS to me.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  Odrade

  ::::This is why Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds to walk the earth, believed that God existed and is responsible for these outstanding features that we humans are aware of at present.:::

  Wrong. Albert Einstein admitted that the way certain things occurred made a good argument for the possibility of a creator, but he acknowledged that he, personally, did not believe it was so. Look it up. This "Albert Einstein believed in God, and he was brilliant," story has been around for so long... all grown out of a very selective quotation that distorted his intention.

  Vinny, you present a lot of beliefs, but not a single fact. There is a difference. You present your faith as if it is substantive rather than emotive. You believe because you can not imagine feeling otherwise, you do not believe because FACT A led to FACT B, which lead you to another FACT C, leading finally to factual proof of god's existence.

  You know, when my next door neighbor's kid was little, he believed in the Easter Bunny, and he believed in Santa Claus. Why? because the chocolate and the presents magically showed up in his home, and he could not imagine any other way they could have possibly gotten there, without the help of these beings. He had proof, and he believed. There's nothing wrong with that, but at some point a person has to grow enough so they can recognize faith for faith, and facts for facts. The fact is, your incomprehension of how the organisms on earth came to be is not proof of a creator, it is simply incomprehension.
• 

  choosing life

  Seeker4

  I think you misunderstood what I stated. I said that no person can either prove or disprove whether there is a God or creator. I did not say that God could not prove it.

  A person can choose to believe in a creator or just as easily choose not to believe in a creator. That is their choice and they shouldn't be belittled for their decision either way. What is it about a firm believer in God that threatens an athiest? And what is it about an athiest that threatens a firm believer in God? If one is certain in his belief or disbelief, then there is no real problem.

  If one must prove that God does exist, then the opposite is just as true. One must prove that God does not exist. No free rides here. But the whole point is that we as humans can not prove it, one way or the other. We can prove it in our own minds, what makes sense to us, but that is as far as we can go.
• 

  Vinny

  Odrade says:..."You believe because you can not imagine feeling otherwise"
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  If you disagree with my logic trying to prove life is complex, is complicated and is a product of intelligent design, then for once, please counter that argument SPECIFICALLY.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  **** Sorry, but YOU are wrong.
  
  Here are just a few quotes Einstein made:
  
  
  "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
  
  
  "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Though many EX-JW's do seem to be.
  
  
  And I can sometimes understand why.
• 

  Vinny

  A few concluding thoughts for now:
  
  Where are the fossils where the mammals are still in some evolutionary half-waystages? Where are the giraffe fossils with shorter necks? What possible benefit does a peacock derive from carrying such a heavy and colorful tail through these different evolutionary stages? What possible evolutionary need is there for humans to appreciate art? Why do humans have a conscience when animals clearly do not? Why do all races and tribes of humans throughout the earth have this built in desire to worship God? Whys is food pleasurable, why do we see in color? Why do we have a sense of humor? What evolutionary need does that serve, I wonder?
  
  Also, Tell me one single thing around you, one product you use, one piece of furniture or decoration in your house that was not designed by somebody. Prove to me that any house, that red corvette, a simple ink pen does not absolutely REQUIRE, yes even begs of a designer. Every single thing you see simply demands that it was in fact created. True, not true? Yet somehow, atheists believe that the far more complicated earth we live on and the incredible design of the human body does not require a designer, a maker? This kind of logic is not logical at all. It is silly and outright foolish. I can respect your right to believe as you all see fit. But to me, it makes zero sense. And nobody has proved otherwise.
  
  
  I have a busy week lined up again. So my presence this week will be limited. But I would like to invite ANYBODY to answer these two questions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  So please tell us, just HOW does life arise from dead, lifeless matter?
  
  
  I have answered YOUR questions. Now I look forward to direct answers to my TWO questions.
  
  
  Have a good week. I'll check back in later.
  
  
  All the best,
  
  Vinny