JW’s & Atheists - Great (Cultic) Minds Think Alike

by Perry 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  Perry,

  What you don't seem to grasp is that your view of atheism is not even remotely connected to the views of actual atheists, but then your aim is not to engage with atheists but to preach your views.

  You are incapable of rationalising a significant proportion of people who do not fit into the little boxes you are desperate to assign people to.

  The fact that you believe the universe has been designed by your god and I believe it is here as the result of natural processes and the fundamental physical properties of the universe raises an interesting point.

  You believe that the fundamental properties are correct for the universe we inhabit, but you then add on a supernatural omnipotent being that created it, this addition does not reduce the complexity of the universe, it adds to it. My own view is a much more simple explanation and hence the fundamental properties of the universe are an issue for the atheist and the theist. Whilst you may believe that your answer that god did it is satisfactory it is a much more complex answer than the naturalist one since we both live in the same universe.

  It may well be that fundamental physical properties are the only way the universe can exist it may not. Since there isn't a grand unification theory yet your cut and paste of figures is meaningless. Science does not know how these properties interact with each other and so speculation on the meaning of their values and maximum deviations is a fools errand. Whenever someone manages to come up with a GUT it may well be that these properties are a function of whatever it is that links all the forces in the universe.

  I do know one thing though, if science answers the problem tomorrow you will still be a blinkered fundamentalist incapable of understanding anything about atheism.

  For example my lack of belief in god is not due to the fact I exist as you suggest but due to a lack of even one shred of evidence for his existence. Your complaints regarding this form of atheism smacks of someone who just cant find any substantial rebuttal to this position.
• 

  jws

  On the one hand atheists laugh at the idea that an almighty God produced a woman out of a rib but have no issue of accepting the idea of cloning asheep.

  If God did create Eve from a rib of Adam, wouldn't she have the same DNA? Inbreeding causes problems in the human species. As it was, it would have been messy enough for a species to populate from 2 pair.

  They feel that it is utter nonsense to think that a being superior to humans caused a snake to talk and that the Creator of all life cause an ass to speak but have no issue of accepting that chimps learned to talk all by themselves.

  Snakes and donkeys don't have the same vocal abilities. Ever seen either one pucker to make a 'p' sound? Chimps learned to talk? Sure. Animals do talk. They do have communication. Obviously as brain sizes increased communication became more complex.

  They feel that it is ridiculous to talk about the idea of how similarity in species indicates intelligent design by a being who knew how to make these things work but have no issue with believing this was all was done by…no one.

  Things are evolving all of the time. DNA is like a blueprint. More like a computer programming array if you're familiar with programming. Each slot in the array holds a value which control aspects of your being. The fact that you might have blond hair and other people have red is a difference between your DNA vs. theirs. If DNA can change, why just on hair color? Why not in the amount of hair and where it grows, the length of our legs, the number of fingers and toes? As you want to believe, Adam and Eve had the same DNA, yet we don't all look alike today. We all have distinct DNA. Our DNA obviously mutated (evolved). Also look at the way species developed. Why does Australia, seperated from the rest of the world, have unique animals? Some are very close to animals elsewhere, but different. The logical conclusion I would have is that they had common anscestors. When Australia was seperated, they each evolved in different directions. Yet you think God just decided Australia should have different animals? Why put Kangaroos only in Australia? And how'd they get there after the flood?
• 

  Pistoff

  " It is a world view that interprets observable facts without God, the same as an amoral person interprets his behavior without morals. Major proponents of atheism like Richard Dawkins like to fuse the meaning of the word “a-theist”, into something synonymous with “a-belief”. This connecting of different definitions is in reality con (latin for “with”) fusion or commonly known as confusion."

  Nice twofer, Perry; you managed to connect 2 completely unrelated ideas, and paint atheists as amoral people. Where is your evidence for suggesting that because they don't believe in God they are automatically amoral? Is it your religious bias that people who do not believe in an imaginary, invisible, sky creature (whose existence has been asserted by the most knowing of desert dwellers since time immemorial) must necessarily be immoral and unethical?

  Are you yourself moral because you think God will punish you if you are not?

  Who would you say has started more wars throughout history? Would it be atheists? Or believers in God?
• 

  Elemental

  Of course the answer would have to be (following your logic) that his God created him. And how did a being greater than God come into being? His God, of course. And so on, and so forth.

  Please address this.

  Since we are speculating on this I will answer with a speculation...

  This question is a simple one to answer...time like all things had a begining when the Big Bang started. As a result there was and is something that exists outside of time. After all something in existance cannot bring something into existance as great as itself. Therefore the natural would reuqire the supernatural as the natural requires something greater than itself to exist in the first place.

  Time is by definition the measurement of entropy (decay) upon an object. Since God is not subject to the laws in which he created, and is incorruptible he is not subject to age nor decay and is therefore ageless as age is something that he created for us to measure decay with.

  In any case you are stuck with one option since the current data points to a begining of the universe and that is someone or something was beyond time as time did not exist when the universe started. Since I for one see complexity in what has been made I come to the conclusion that there is a complex intelliegence behind it.

  But all of this is moot as no one has all of the data like I said before.
• 

  Elemental

  Nice twofer, Perry; you manage 2 connect to completely unrelated ideas, and paint atheists as amoral people. Where is your evidence for suggesting that because they don't believe in God they are automatically amoral? Is it your religious bias that people who do not believe in an imaginary, invisible, sky creature must necessarily be immoral and unethical?

  Are you yourself moral because you think God will punish you if you are not?

  Who would you say has started more wars throughout history? Would it be atheists? Or believers in God?

  There are moral atheists just as there are immoral Christians. Judging one group on the basis of what other do is absurd.

  War and killing did not start with the Christians nor the Jews. According to your belief war started millions of years ago long before either came on the scene. The only thing that changed is the moral reasons why. The killing itself was continuous.

  Besides I thought that atheists were not a "group" or a "religion." So why are you acting as though they are? After was not Marilyn Madelyn O’Hair killed by an atheist? So should I judge all atheists off of this?

  If not then why are you judging all Christians off of the Crusades? What I find amusing is that atheists will say that the good in Christianity was something that all society in general agrees with but somehow point to the idea that the immorality totally originated with Christians.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I do allow for the possibility of god, and even your god, Perry. At best, it is just a possibility. I am still waiting for that return call.

  These arguments are always stimulating to a certain point, as I think it good to revist what I believe and I why I believe. (or do not believe as the case may be.)

  If atheists are guilty of anything, they are guilty of rejecting Jesus, YHWH, Allah, the Pope, and the like into the same group. They all fall in the same category.

  There are many non Christian theists who would have a great deal of problems with your arguments for one simple reason. They were raised to worship a different god. They know a different god. To them, Jesus is a false god, Christianity is a false religion.

  The fact that there are competing "god clubs" around the world is a very precise reason why atheists do not put a lot of stock in reasoning such as you have postulated. Even if at best, your anecdotal observations on physics and certain laws of science perhaps indicate the possible existence of a higher power, there still is no personallity associated with this!

  In the direct absence of this personality, god clubs from around the world rush into this void and promote their own deity's personality. You have no more right to claim Jesus is behind all the marvels of science or "creation" then any other deity would have. You are all simply in the same boat.

  Because of this, cognitive dissonance is not the issue with atheists. All they are simply asking for is evidence of existence and personality.

  To put a finer point on this Perry, I know for a fact that you exist. I have had online debates with you, I know your views. You have taken the time to respond to me. But your god has not. He has not made himself known to billions of people around the world. This is why atheists exist. While you suggest they don't look at the evidence, it is clear that they only look at the evidence.

  To put it another way, all of the science and articles you quoted Perry, do not prove you exist. They don't prove anyone exists. All the marvelous cells and physical capabilities happening in all of our bodies right now, in our brains, stomachs, digestive systems, are no proof that we exist, until we actually interact with others.

  You are giving a false litmus test to prove the existence of your god. It is a false premise and a sham. The real crux of the matter is this: When will god interact with her creation? Until such time as she does, there is no evidence that a god, (much less a god needing to be worshipped) exists. Atheists realize this, and that is why they clearly have the intellectualy honest high moral ground.
• 

  Gladring

  Caedes said:

  ...then add on a supernatural omnipotent being that created it, this addition does not reduce the complexity of the universe, it adds to it.

  I think that is game, set, and match!
• 

  Elemental

  My response to this are intalics.

  I do allow for the possibility of god, and even your god, Perry. At best, it is just a possibility. I am still waiting for that return call.

  Tell why do you think that he would come to you if you do not want him? You claim that you do not believe in him and yet expect that he is going to somehow give you a return call. If you took that view with me I would not respond to you either.Most athiests are not exactly respectful when it comes to talking about God and then find it odd that that he never came to them. Once again contradictive thinking.

  These arguments are always stimulating to a certain point, as I think it good to revist what I believe and I why I believe. (or do not believe as the case may be.)

  If atheists are guilty of anything, they are guilty of rejecting Jesus, YHWH, Allah, the Pope, and the like into the same group. They all fall in the same category.

  And yet athiests do not? Exactly when did you become an expert into what people believe? If you do not wish to be categorized do not do it to others.

  There are many non Christian theists who would have a great deal of problems with your arguments for one simple reason. They were raised to worship a different god. They know a different god. To them, Jesus is a false god, Christianity is a false religion.

  The fact that there are competing "god clubs" around the world is a very precise reason why atheists do not put a lot of stock in reasoning such as you have postulated. Even if at best, your anecdotal observations on physics and certain laws of science perhaps indicate the possible existence of a higher power, there still is no personallity associated with this!

  In the direct absence of this personality, god clubs from around the world rush into this void and promote their own deity's personality. You have no more right to claim Jesus is behind all the marvels of science or "creation" then any other deity would have. You are all simply in the same boat.

  Because of this, cognitive dissonance is not the issue with atheists. All they are simply asking for is evidence of existence and personality.

  And yet you reject this evidence whenever it is presented to you; the Bible. Contrary what athiests assume I have found that the history for Christianity is very well founded. There are hundreds of years of texts that point the the existiance of Jesus and the resurrection as well as the account of Noah's Ark, the flood, Moses, and others (inside and outside of the Bible.)

  But athiests deny all of this as myth despite the fact that if it were any other event in history there would be no doubt whatsoever. They come to me and explain that Jesus was a myth despite the fact that so much is written about the man that if he is myth then figures such as Alexander the Great are not even in the running.

  The point is this, if someone came to me with historical evidence and I claimed it was all myth I could disprove anything too.

  To put a finer point on this Perry, I know for a fact that you exist. I have had online debates with you, I know your views. You have taken the time to respond to me. But your god has not. He has not made himself known to billions of people around the world. This is why atheists exist. While you suggest they don't look at the evidence, it is clear that they only look at the evidence.

  And would you be able to prove his existance to anyone a hundred years from now? Who would be able to prove by your writings that he existed? Yet that is exactly what you tell me to do with the Apostles. Take your word, one who was born thousands of years after the Apostles were on the scene and take your view over theirs. Explain to me the logic behind that reasoning.

  To put it another way, all of the science and articles you quoted Perry, do not prove you exist. They don't prove anyone exists. All the marvelous cells and physical capabilities happening in all of our bodies right now, in our brains, stomachs, digestive systems, are no proof that we exist, until we actually interact with others.

  You are giving a false litmus test to prove the existence of your god. It is a false premise and a sham. The real crux of the matter is this: When will god interact with her creation? Until such time as she does, there is no evidence that a god, (much less a god needing to be worshipped) exists. Atheists realize this, and that is why they clearly have the intellectualy honest high moral ground.

  Once again ignoring evidence when it suits your purpose...

  Again and again the Bible shows witness testemony and interaction with this God but you reject it as myth DESPITE of consistant information given over the centuries. You reject the idea that Christains have Christ living in them (something that I feel as well) and the overwhelming evidence of the complexity of life and still you say there is no evidence.Once again proving my point athiests are the ones that are contradictive.I just love that you know that all the Christians are liars when they say this and it must be all delusional becuase YOU say it is.

  Perhaps the issue is not that there is no God. Perhaps he simply has not come to YOU.
• 

  Pistoff

  "There are moral atheists just as there are immoral Christians. Judging one group on the basis of what other do is absurd.

  Right. Never said otherwise, just making the observation that in the modern day, religious wars and killings are by far the norm, rather than otherwise.

  War and killing did not start with the Christians nor the Jews. According to your belief war started millions of years ago long before either came on the scene. The only thing that changed is the moral reasons why. The killing itself was continuous.

  I made no statement about when war started; I am interested in modern sources of wars. It is most common that they are fought by religious persons who think that God is on their side. George W Bush was motivated to run for president because he thought God wanted him to; up to 1 million Iraqis are dead. Did God want George to do this?

  Besides I thought that atheists were not a "group" or a "religion." So why are you acting as though they are? After was not Marilyn Madelyn O’Hair killed by an atheist? So should I judge all atheists off of this?

  I never said I was an atheist; I can't speak for them. But I recognize faulty logic when I see it.

  If not then why are you judging all Christians off of the Crusades? What I find amusing is that atheists will say that the good in Christianity was something that all society in general agrees with but somehow point to the idea that the immorality totally originated with Christians.

  I fault both sides in the Crusades. They both felt that God wanted them to kill infidels. Which side was he on?
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Caedes said:

  but you then add on a supernatural omnipotent being that created it, this addition does not reduce the complexity of the universe, it adds to it.

  Only if He is a part of said universe would He add to its complexity.

  My own view is a much more simple explanation

  Great! Perhaps you can explain how life came from non-life?