If You Were Wrong About The JWs, Maybe Your Current Beliefs Aren't True

by serotonin_wraith 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

BurnTheShips

They will be solved with evidence, not feelings.

Did "evidence" supply the animus for Mozart or Michaelangelo, Bach or Beethoven--or was it the Divine Flame in their bosoms? Can you reduce the Suite Bergamasque or the Sistine Chapel to strictly evolutionary algorithms? Are we merely the agglomeration of countless atoms and our genius the result of electrochemical interactions or are we "created in the image of God"? Are beauty, love, free will, and consciousness merely illusions or are they rooted in a transcendent reality beyond the senses? Answer these.
If there is anything after death, why does a god have to be involved?
If there is anything after death, why do you object to God being involved? If there is the spiritual, why not the Spirit? If there is the immaterial, why not the immanent? If there is that which we perceive and understand, could there be the something that is beyond all our knowledge and understanding? We build machines that understand chess, but they are incapable of understanding beauty or love. Can our own intelligence and programming be similarly limited? Answer these.
You're saying you do know, and I think you're wrong to be so sure of yourself.
To ask Chalam to deny his personal experience is to deny him to doubt his own sanity. Which reality is better Sero, the one he experiences, or the one insist he must accept under the aegis of "Science"?
" How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ? "
" Four. "
" And if the party says that it is not four but five - then how many ? "
" Four. "
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
" How many fingers, Winston ? "
" Four. "
The needle went up to sixty.
" How many fingers, Winston ? "
" Four ! Four ! What else can I say ? Four ! "
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
" How many fingers, Winston ? "
" Four ! Stop it, stop it ! How can you go on ? Four ! Four ! "
" How many fingers, Winston ? "
" Five ! Five ! Five ! "
" No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please ? "
" Four ! five ! Four ! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain ! "
"You are a slow learner, Winston ", said O'Brien gently.
Burn
chickpea

i am still in the relatively empty vacuum created when a pattern of living disintegrates completely, but i agree with those who posted that they doubt their judgment .....
i just dont have the inspiration to give a rat's @ss about any of it right now..... is there a god? does there need to be? creation? evolution? i dont care.... i am numb and for the first time in my life i have no beliefs in this realm
Vinny

A Few Replies:
BurnTheShips

OMG Vinny, what the bloody hell is up with so many spaces between lines in your post? It is enough to make a man lose faith in God!
R.Crusoe

It is why I looked at Wicca and gray witchcraft but looked back at wicca due to family loyalties being intrinsic to gray witchcraft.
They do not impose belief but encourage you to explore it and nature and be yourself, whether that involves high or low levels of far fetched ideas it is a free thinking path.
I also look at atheism and natural history as inspirational but Wicca seems to give me more empathetic souls to communicate with. Some talk of spirits and I aint ever seen one and aint afraid either so no problemo for me there. It;s how you feel I think and since this belief is in the lands that I live it feels like its tuning me into nature and the cosmos. No rush and if I move on I move on! It;'s my path and noone elses.
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Sorry, I didn't bother to read every line posted so far. I just thought I'd throw in my opinion on the subject. I'm still stuck 'in'. I've read the Bible lid-to-lid several times. Too many contradictions and lack of clarity in what is in the scriptures. CT Russell tried to make sense of it, but with or without the pyramids, a hundred years later and the JWs are still clueless. Now, while not accepting JW beliefs, I guess my JW programming has taught me that every other religion is wrong, and that atheism is wrong.
I have two current beliefs:
- I believe in a higher power and am awaiting further instruction.
- I believe I'll have a drink and call it a night.
On my first current belief, maybe I'm wrong. On my second current belief, I'm right on the money !
Billy... glug, glug, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Vinny

A few Replies Cont....

The Big Bang theory is based on solid data and would show that the
Universe had a finite beginning in time (about 15 billion years ago) -
before that it didn't exist. How did everything come out of something that
didn't exist, if there is no God?

Some argue that the earth is 4 billion years old. This is not enough time
for evolution to have happened. The rate of mutations likely to be helpful
is not large enough to explain the development of all things, especially the
first cell from non-living chemicals. Some scientists can see this and have
therefore postulated that life originated somewhere else (not on earth) and
came to earth by something called panspermia. In this way, they put the
problem back, but the solution to the problem of life's origin remains still
unknown. See Reasons to Believe for more information on Creation and Time
and the astronomical evidence for God's existence.

No model has ever succesfully been given for the evolution of the first
biological cell from random chemical reactions over a long period of time.
Just as a mousetrap that misses just one part has no use, so the majority of
bio-chemical mechanisms in nature would not work if just one of their
component parts were missing (waiting to be evolved). Then how would blind
chance ever favor these incredibly improbable PARTIAL inventions? It would
surely destroy them.

What we are being asked to believe is that random processes generate real
information in the genetic code. Using this logic, enough nuclear accidents
would lead to great improvements in the human race. Even Microsoft Windows
95 with all its faults was not the result of random events (though some
might contest that!). How much less the human DNA code?

The fossil record speaks against classical Darwinian evolution, not in
its favour. Where are all the transitional fossils? There should be billions
of them in the earth if random processes led to major changes in species.
Why don't we find them? (Hint: they never existed). Punctuated equilibrium,
the "hopeful monster" theory and other similar ones just show how bankrupt
the theory of evolution really is. You don't need evidence for a theory that
by overwhelming political pressure is assumed to be true. Anything will do.
As Hitler said, if you repeat a really big lie often enough many will
believe it. Propaganda, dogmatic assertion by experts who all assume that
other experts outside their field have proved the theory - these are the
true keys to evolution's popularity.

Some Biological Problems of the Natural Selection Theory - Dr. Jerry Bergman

If any of the constants of physics were just a little different, Life
would be impossible for many reasons. But why do the laws of physics exist?
And why are these constants just right for the existence of life? Has
someone "monkeyed with the constants of physics" to make life possible?

All the so-called "missing links" between apes and man are either frauds
or pure speculations based on very scanty "evidence". The earth should be
replete with them if millions of small changes between man and ape account
for the evolution of man from apes.

Some creatures, like the honey bee, just can't be accounted for by the
theory of natural selection, since the honey bees themselves don't pass on
genetic information.

Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which says that
closed systems tend to increasing levels of disorder. The order must have
come from somewhere in the Universe to give rise to the order here on earth?
But how and from where? Naturalists don't seem to have any real answers to
these questions.

I
It's hard to imagine how an eye would evolve. A half seeing eye has no
survival value. How could such as a half developed eye come to exist if it
serves no function and adds no survival value?

Pasteur, of "spontaneous generation". Things just appear. Genetic
information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No
God need be involved. Take it on trust. Its only your eternal soul that's at
stake.

BY: BABU G. RANGANATHAM

June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the fossil
record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of
half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed
species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that
a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there
are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the
fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be
able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any
partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every
species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species
survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were
still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing,
eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive
organs were still evolving?

In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern
evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium
which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to
another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species
in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith
because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These
evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation
resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes
from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be
discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete
in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation
because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and
complete which is possible only by creation.

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between
species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one
interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative
similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for
similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be
scientifically proved.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection
occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a
creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological
variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the
possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses,
cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless
Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution
will not be possible.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are
really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck
regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and
spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the
rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx
has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic
muscles.

Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or
biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they
are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic
potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs,
cats, horses, cows, etc.

Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like
creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as
Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has
the capability of performing genetic engineering.

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species.
The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids
which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is
this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various
tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the
genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits
and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in
entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of
natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility.
Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic
code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and
toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally
expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one
there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being
disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of
previously existing genes - not because of mutations.

Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing
traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the
gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't
change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits
(i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of
the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or
characteristics.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races
of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches. Well,
in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different
color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same
parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with
different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed
genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not
carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve
did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not
all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one
person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e.,
brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of
the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different
abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove
we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They
are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian
macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value
of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe
operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to
believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of
science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe,
and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can
never fully explain the origin of such order.

The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the
ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the
universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.

http://www.gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html

Or go here:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

: )

And for those that say universe is all chaotic, and not organized; then look at us right now. Here we are. Everything perfectly working and beautifully, harmoniously balanced. Life sure exists right now due to amazing harmony and balance of numerous, essential things all at once.

There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself.

Many of the arguments about "organized religion" do have merit, IMO.

But there are some pretty good arguments backing up some of those opinions. Whereas I see absolutely nothing, anywhere, which supports the belief that there is no God or Intelligent Designer anywhere despite an abundance of amazing things all around us today.

This is why so few today ever give atheism a second glance.

But I have done much more than that. I have debated these very things with hundreds of capable non-believers in many places. The facts supporting atheism are just not there.

I do appreciate your taking the time though.

Have a good one Seratonin.

All the best,

Vinny
Chalam

Hi serotonin_wraith,
Thanks for your replies. I think you have though a lot about many of these issues before, probably a lot more than I have with some of them. So I will try and answer briefly.

"The consciousness of computers- I don't think they're 'dumb' for a start, just try playing chess against one! I think the idea of a soul is a tricky one. Breaking it down, our consciousness may just be electrical signals within the brain, making sense of the universe through our five senses, or 'filters'. We can't see or hear as well as some animals, yet our limited senses give us a representation of reality we feel comfortable with. But there is more we cannot sense at present. We don't have the complete picture at all. I was watching a program on dolphins earlier, they experience the world through sound mostly. Are they wrong? No. Are they seeing true reality? No, and neither are we. I don't think any animal has evolved to the point where it can sense all the wavelengths of light, all the sound waves, and so on. So knowing who 'we' are is difficult to determine. We are somewhat limited."

I agree, a chess program can beat us all at chess and even now it is beating the world chess champions, but would you want a computer to make the simplest of decisions for you? Answer is most likely no, you feel you have more wisdom than the most 'clever' computer on earth. I believe that is because we are made in God's image, but my PC or a dolphin isn't.

"An atheist is free to think what they want about 'spirituality', the soul, consciousness, etc. These things may exist without a god. After watching plenty of shows on androids and robots and holograms, I have the same questions too. But thinking Jesus died for my sins isn't going to solve them. They will be solved with evidence, not feelings."

I agree about the possibility of spirituality existing without the existence of a god. However, my own conclusion is that the two are linked and thus the verse 'God is spirit' is no coincidence.

"You say you cannot grasp the concept of infinity. You apply that characteristic to your god easily enough. I don't think it's too hard to grasp. Think of the biggest number you can, then keep adding to it. It goes on and on, and when you think it's gotten quite long, just keep going. There's no reason to stop."

I agree, but can I 'quantify' it beyond that? Every time I consider 'what came before the beginning' my only answer can be God. You could answer, 'something else' but what came before that? 'Infinity' I hear you answer! Well God is infinite ;)

"You say you cannot explain the 'spiritual' realm. You are limited by your physical make up, as I am. And yet you try to explain the spiritual realm, and you say that you know there is a god, and that you know which god is real. It baffles me, because if you 'cannot explain the spiritual realm', what are doing trying to explain the spiritual realm?"

I believe I am a spiritual being. I believe I have a soul and a spirit. I cannot see physically this aspect to myself or anyone else because it is part of the 'unseen' in those verses. HOwever, I feel it is there and I feel when it is not there when someone dies and I look at their body.

"With faith? You don't use this kind of faith for anything else in life. You couldn't rely on faith to believe in Thor - you dismiss that god without blinking. But faith in Yahweh becomes a virtue for you. The god is different, but the same thing you think is ridiculous in one instance is seen as a good thing just a few sentences later."

I use faith increasingly in everything I do in life. I pray about all things, even the small ones because I believe God is for me, not against me. That is not to say that I use faith to pick an object up or get out of bed but I exercise faith in increasingly in all situations.

"If there is anything after death, why does a god have to be involved? It may be completely natural, it may be aliens uploading our souls into their computers, it could be lots of things. Nobody knows. You're saying you do know, and I think you're wrong to be so sure of yourself. It's late here, but I'll watch that video in the next day or two. Thanks."

I agree, same thoughts as the earlier question in this thread, you could be right but then so could I. Neither of us will know the answer until we die. I believe there is no second chance (re-incarnation etc.) so I urge people to be 100% happy with their answer before they take the plunge, which could come at any time for any of us. Forget Armageddon, death is the thing to fear but I have lost any fear of that!

OK last question, do you believe in aliens? I might as well answer if for you because logic says there are only four answers.

1. Yes, but I haven't seen them. Well you believe in something you haven't seen so God might exist too.

2. Yes, I have seen them! Well I assume you didn't seen them the day you were born so one day God might appear too.

3. No, but they could exist. Well you haven't seen them but you agree they could exist and in similar fashion God too.

4. No, I know they don't exist. Well how? Have you been to every corner of the universe at the same time? Or out side of it (if that exists)?

For me, atheism is a tough faith to defend, there are too many unknowns. Sure, I am defending something I cannot see but I believe I have circumstantial evidence to back up my case. Every time I meet with born again Christians I see it this evidence. Jesus said this

John 14:11 (New International Version)
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

So have a root around. Get in a church that believes and uses the gifts of the Holy Spirit and then decide if you have the same opinion before you shut the door.

All the best,
Stephen
martinwellborne

hmm, faith??
Thomas Jefferson said..."Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
good on him
serotonin_wraith

Burn,
Why what?

Did "evidence" supply the animus for Mozart or Michaelangelo, Bach or Beethoven--or was it the Divine Flame in their bosoms? Can you reduce the Suite Bergamasque or the Sistine Chapel to strictly evolutionary algorithms? Are we merely the agglomeration of countless atoms and our genius the result of electrochemical interactions or are we "created in the image of God"? Are beauty, love, free will, and consciousness merely illusions or are they rooted in a transcendent reality beyond the senses? Answer these.

Were these people trying to answer questions about the universe? I don't think they were, I think they were being creative and making things for the pleasure of themselves and others. Feelings are fine, but I'm talking about basing what you think reality is purely on feelings. I don't see that as a good thing.
Beauty and love are very much subjective. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there can hardly be a transcendent reality in which there is an ultimate form of beauty, or the knowledge of what pure beauty would be.
Same with love. We all don't love the same person. People are drawn to all kinds of other people.
I think these things can be explained in terms of evolution. Species that can love are more likely to stay with their partners and help raise children, giving them a better chance of survival. If we didn't love our children, we may leave them to fend for themselves.
Looking around us and seeing beauty in the world is going to make us care more about what happens to our planet. We may not survive as a species if our home is damaged, so it seems natural to me that an appreciation for our surroundings is a good trait to have and pass on.
I don't think we have free will in the sense you think of it. I think we're limited by the physical. I can't float across the street, for example. How about when our ancestors had smaller brains? They couldn't invent aeroplanes or electricity. While we had to build on the knowledge of generations before us to get to the point where we could, I think it would have been impossible for early humans to have thought in that way, simply because they didn't have the brain capacity to do so. If they were limited by their physical bodies, then I can't see how it's different for us.
I don't know if there is a seperate consciousness outside the brain. I'm pretty sure if I shot myself in the head everything about me as a human would stop. I don't see any reason to believe I exist after death. As far as I'm aware, I didn't exist before death, which tells me whatever I am, it developed as my brain developed in the womb. My consciousness and my physical body seem so connected I cannot see my thoughts existing without my brain. With tests now, we can see that different parts of the brain are affected when people think in certain ways. A part for memory, a part for 'knowing oneself', etc. It makes more sense to think of myself as a part of the body, rather than a seperate entity.

If there is anything after death, why do you object to God being involved? If there is the spiritual, why not the Spirit? If there is the immaterial, why not the immanent? If there is that which we perceive and understand, could there be the something that is beyond all our knowledge and understanding? We build machines that understand chess, but they are incapable of understanding beauty or love. Can our own intelligence and programming be similarly limited? Answer these.

I don't reject the idea there may be a god. Anything is possible. Maybe aliens are controlling us, maybe the Egyptians were right all along and it's their gods that are real, maybe this is all a dream some giant is having. There's no reason to believe in any of that, and most of us don't think deeply about those possibilities, and yet it's exactly the same with God. There's just as much reason to believe in God as there is to believe in those things. I'm staying consistent, and you're making an exception for this one thing.
If there is a spiritual realm, maybe there are spirits. If Middle Earth exists, maybe there are talking trees. Again, apply the point to something else and it's easy to see how unsatisfying the argument is. If there was any reason to believe in a spirit realm or Middle Earth, I would certainly take more notice of those who believe in spirits or trolls.
I think there is plenty beyond our understanding. I'm happy finding out in due time as we grow in knowledge. Like I said to Chalam, you are saying you have the answers. You're saying you know there actually IS a god, and that you've narrowed it down to a specific one, without researching the 3000 others. I say I don't know if there is life after death, but you are saying there is, and that you know how to get there. Are you really being humble when you say you're sure of all these things?
I do think we are limited. Take this example. Our eyes can only sense a tiny fragment of the light spectrum. So already our senses are limited, and the information going to our brains is limited. When you look out of your window, that's not pure reality you're seeing. It's a watered down limited view of everything there is out there. Even other animals can see things we can't.
I'm a long way off torturing anyone to accept reality! I don't agree with that. Just thinking rationally and looking at evidence can cure people. I was raised to believe Adam and Eve were the first humans made. Then I discovered the truth. Does it bother me to know I had the wrong worldview? Absolutely, and I don't think you're being completely honest when you say it's okay for people to live in a delusional state. It is not okay, we usually help people who believe in crazy things. And if their beliefs make them do crazy things which can affect others, then reality is definitely the way to go.
Vinny,
It looks to me as if you are wasting time talking to an invisible friend because you want to be greedy and live forever, where you're actually lucky to get any time at all on this planet.
Much of the rest of the message is repeating things I've answered already, I'm afraid. The same bogus 'chance' thing, for example.
An atheist lacks belief in a god, it doesn't mean they have to say one definitely doesn't exist. I'm open to it all - aliens, giants, trolls and gods. I don't discriminate.
The universe isn't organized. Planets smashing into planets, stars exploding, galaxies colliding. It's a mess.
Once you understand evolution, you can see that WE evolved to fit the conditions of the planet, not the other way round. And that even if the chances of conditions being right for life to start (not evolve, start) were tiny, there's so many planets in the universe for it to have happened once, here, without believing some intelligence must have been behind it. One planet out of a billion billion. Looks about right if you believe it was lucky for conditions to be right for life.
Your post is too long, sorry. I'm looking at it all but I can't be bothered giving you all the answers. It's not because I don't have them, it's because I know it'll be a waste of my time. I've already given you details for finding out how complex things arise, and you've completely ignored it and rambled on about how it makes no sense. You're too closed minded to have a conversation with.
Like you, the author of the article does not know much about evolution. The sooner these fraudsters/intellectually challenged can refrain from lying to people, the better off we'll all be. Evolution is a fact like the earth is round and smoking is bad for your health. It just is.
Okay, now I've stopped. It's too much to go through. Can't you just stick to one thing at a time instead of this stab stab stab stab approach, piling the info so high it takes ages to unpick it all?
Chalam,
Ahh, an easier message to digest, thank you!

I agree, a chess program can beat us all at chess and even now it is beating the world chess champions, but would you want a computer to make the simplest of decisions for you? Answer is most likely no, you feel you have more wisdom than the most 'clever' computer on earth. I believe that is because we are made in God's image, but my PC or a dolphin isn't.
It depends on the circumstances. Let's say I wanted to go see a friend the other side of the country. Do I use my brain to plan out a route, or do I pull up a map and use that? I would base my decision on which way to go on the information in the computer. A human may have created the map, and then put it into the computer, so let's consider finding the quickest route, how much gas/petrol I'll need, etc. Now the human falls behind, or doesn't have the capabilities to find out the information quickly without the computer.
Would I want an animal making decisions for me? If I was a blind man with a guide dog, then yes, I would want the dog to make decisions for me, mainly about which direction to walk in. I can think of other examples too. When we feel content using our brains, we do, but when we see a better way, we're quite capable of letting other animals and machinery make the decisions for us.

I agree, but can I 'quantify' it beyond that? Every time I consider 'what came before the beginning' my only answer can be God. You could answer, 'something else' but what came before that? 'Infinity' I hear you answer! Well God is infinite ;)
A god could be infinite, or the universe could be infinite, or something else could be infinite. Which of these do we know exists? The universe. It's less of a leap to think the universe always existed than it is to think a being we've never seen always existed. We know the universe is real.
Or maybe saying what came before the beginning is like saying what's north of the north pole? Nothing, yet the north pole still exists.

I believe I am a spiritual being. I believe I have a soul and a spirit. I cannot see physically this aspect to myself or anyone else because it is part of the 'unseen' in those verses. HOwever, I feel it is there and I feel when it is not there when someone dies and I look at their body.

It's all based on feelings, and feelings are not always trustworthy. Like I put in the first post, people here felt they were in the one true religion before. Those feelings turned out to be a misrepresentation of reality. You use faith to believe in Yahweh, but you would never use it to believe in any other god because then, it would be silly to you.

I believe there is no second chance (re-incarnation etc.) so I urge people to be 100% happy with their answer before they take the plunge, which could come at any time for any of us. Forget Armageddon, death is the thing to fear but I have lost any fear of that!

You've just dismissed thousands of years of Buddhist teachings there, from men who spent their whole lives dedicated to exploring their 'spiritual' side. It's easy enough to do when you're not a Buddhist, isn't it? But if you had been raised in that religion, and taught that reincarnation was real, maybe you'd believe in that now instead of Christian teachings. Is it a lucky coincidence you happen to believe in the same religion most people around you believe in?
I don't fear death. I've seen quite a few dead bodies as part of my job (mass murderer! Ha, no, at a nursing home!). I don't fear not existing any more than I fear being unconscious when I go to sleep. If I'm not aware, I won't care. But if there is a god and an afterlife, I'd be terrified hoping I'd picked the right god to worship in the right way. I'm surprised you're not. There are more gods to consider than the one of the Bible, and even more religions, with a lot claiming to be the one true way to eternal life.
Do I believe in aliens? My answer is number 3. They could exist, and a god could too. But I'm not going to act as if they do, or it does, unless I have any reason to. I'm not going to start communicating telepathically with any aliens that may be out there, or with a god. When there's no reason to believe in something, we tend to live our lives as if they don't exist, until we're proven wrong.

For me, atheism is a tough faith to defend, there are too many unknowns.

It's a lack of belief in a god, and that's it. It's not a worldview, a philosophy, anything. You can be atheist and believe a magic fairy created humans at 3pm last Saturday, and gave them memories going back years. Being an atheist says nothing about what a person does believe, just like you not believing in Allah says nothing about what you do believe.
Not every religion is true, they can't be. Think of Muslims and Christians - one group believes Jesus died for our sins, the other believes he was just a prophet. They can't both be right. So we know for a fact there are millions of people in the world who are wrong about this, whether it's the Christians, the Muslims, or both. But talk to them, and they are so sure they have it right. They 'feel' they have the right religion. It's easy for you to see when another religion is wrong, but the only way to see every religion objectively is to be outside them all.
Like when you say to try different churches, you're talking about Christianity. That's not the only religion. There are thousands, and thousands of gods. Shouldn't I be researching them all? I don't think 'Hmm, I wonder if the Christians are right' for the same reason you don't think 'Hmm, I wonder if Zeus worshippers were right'. It's a waste of time contemplating it. The only reason I ever believed in the Biblical god was due to childhood indoctrination and living in a mostly Christian society. Once you can understand your beliefs are based on where you happened to be born, it's easy to see it all fall away. At least it was for me.

If You Were Wrong About The JWs, Maybe Your Current Beliefs Aren't True

Share this