Opinion peice on Athiests

by SickofLies 203 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  blueviceroy

  I don't think anyone argues a first cause other than some people which hold to the solid state universe.

  The first cause would indeed qualify as God in the sense of causing all to be .The main bone of contention would be the storys that get told and the way theses storys become law .

  I don't like storys being the basis for a whole civilization like we have now . Basing the matters of policy and ethics on a spiritual belief is a backwards and primitive way to conduct life.

  I"m afraid I'm not sold on any of the storys told about God other than the one about "Only an individuals experience with the divine can determine the veracity of the divine to the individual"

  A presence can be sensed with proper effort and desire , but this presence has nothing to do with any story I have ever read .

  Is it real or imagined? Is it God or just two halves of a brain opening up to the subconsious? Hmmm in all honesty it's hard to descibe the experience of just being what we are as we are.

  That is up to the individual to decide, and I don't care for people who like to determine what that experience is for me, whatever agenda they push ,it's a part of what we are and we should be free to experience our birthright free of labels and dogma.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Is that cause natural or supernatural?

  Why don't you tell me?

  What evidence would satisfy me? Enough empirical evidence for it to be no longer supernatural.

  From the way you are saying it, it sounds like your disbelief in the supernatural is an a priori assertion that no a posteriori empirical evidence could ever deny, only confirm. IOW, it is faith.

  Here is a side question for you Caedes:

  From your statement it seems that you need empirical evidence to rationally believe in something. Would you say that is only true of God?

  Burn
• 

  VoidEater

  I like the way you language that, blue. I'm not sure how I would categorize that experience for myself today, though it is in my awareness nearly all the time these days. I like what it does for me, how it informs my desires and actions, but it's becoming more important to me to describe it more...accurately? Free of superstition? If I say "God" or "Divine", how much gets read into that by someone who has different meanings to those words than I have? Are "ground of consciousness", "higher self", "source", better or worse?
• 

  blueviceroy

  I like to call it my birthright . I think a label just harms and limits , if more people spoke the language of actions and intents we wouldn't have nearly so much confusion and strife ,

  I loathe names , labels and divisions of "right" and "wrong" . Let us instead talk of what things do rather than what we want to call them.

  A negative action/desire like stealing or being dishonest has a price and takes away from life, an altruistic action/desire adds to the value of life rather than taking away.

  We have an inherant nature that allows us to be directed in these two paths , this nature is beneath thought and beneath emotion, self delusion is not possible at this level of consiousness , we need to operate from this level .

  That's just my understanding of the unnamable aspect of self.

  It heals me and others around me and brings light to the world . I see it in others and it makes me smile when I do ,it's absence is appaling to me when I see it's lack in others , but it's growing each day and it's wonderful
• 

  VoidEater

  Burn says:

  The universality of belief in even the most primitive...constitutes further evidence for the existance of God...demonstrates that belief in God is axiomatic and can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God.

  I think it might be more accurate to say that there are some primal experiences that people have tended to put beliefs around; the beliefs are culturally dependent for nuance and meaning; and that historically these experiences have often led to the development of a "God/s" concept.

  This "God/s" concept has, at various times, been equated to creator roles, advisor roles, teacher roles, leader roles, stewardship roles; a cause of good (fertility, harvest, joy) and a cause of tribulation (war, pestilence, loss, sorrow).

  Beliefs and concepts shift and change, with Christianity being but the youngest formulation of a "God/s" concept, with many older roots that moderns would not adhere to.

  It's useful to note, though, that even non-theists have access to these primal experiences and can formulate very different concepts and beliefs and meanings from them. I wouldn't conclude that God must exist simply because historical man has grappled with trying to develop meaning from existence; even within theistic thought, the fact that many cultures come up with pantheistic beliefs based on the same evidence suggests there may not be a singular universal "truth" behind our experience and our struggling with the unknown.

  In the end the only "rationality" behind a belief in God may be whether the belief supports you in your life in a positive way.
• 

  SickofLies

  Lol, this thread has gotten more posts from people than when I did my JC.

  It's good to see that the number of unbelievers has grown considerably since I left.

  I'd like to encourage all of you who go through the pain of trying to argue with creationists / theists that it is making a difference. It seems there are more atheists on JWD that ever before.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  It seems there are more atheists on JWD that ever before.

  You just made little baby Jesus cry.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I'd like to encourage all of you who go through the pain of trying to argue with creationists / theists that it is making a difference.

  I hope we all are, there is plenty of pain to go around.

  I notice that I left several questions that were not addressed upthread that demonstrate the reasonableness of theism. Perhaps in your proselytizational zeal you can try to engage them rather than merely cheerlead?

  Perhaps there are more atheists on JWD or perhaps not-- but that is not the point, is it?

  Burn.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Perhaps in your proselytizational zeal you can try to engage them rather than merely cheerlead?

  

  Is that you, SickofLies?

  Hey, wait!

  That's GWB.

  So, Burn, tell us more about your deity.

  Specifics, please.

  To help us know who were looking for.

  Is the Judeo-Christian Bible God in or out?

  What about Allah?

  Or did you say they were one and the same?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  So, Burn , tell us more about your deity.

  A diversion. I am merely asserting here that Theism as a belief (as has been posted on this forum ad nauseum) is neither unrational, ridiculous, delusional or closeminded. To say that it is, in the face of the evidence, is unrational, ridiculous, delusional and closeminded. You can't defeat theism on rational grounds, therefore you (or many of you, I have no quarrel with those that are respectful atheists) must resort to ridicule. Somehow I remember a lot of JWs resorting to ridicule back when I was in the Tower.

  Nvrgnbk, do you agree that Theism is a rational, and not a ridiculous, belief?

  Burn.