For the board atheists....

by Jack C. 79 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  trailerfitter

  Before reading everyones replies to the origional post statement I would like to say that not all atheists are of the "rational science is right" stance. What amazes me is that jehovah or the idea of jehovah is acredited to creating everything the universe etc etc. Thanks to the JW organisation I was forced to examine what I actually believe....I am now an atheist. Even if it was true and jehovah did exsist,.. I'd want to be sand in his sandles to annoy the desert dwelling retard who thinks he has the right to do what he liked with the human race. inc. promoting abuse.

  I find it insulting to my minimal intellegence that we should be threatened by a jealous god to worship him or endure his wrath. Any idea of a dominating god who wants to be called "the KING" or "LORD" to me is disgusing and to rebel, or to not accept the "only self-claimed true king": one is instantly accused of siding with Satan, is also ludicrous..The idea that the bible is the only truth is rediculous as science has proved it wrong about the understanding we have about the world we live in, however there are professional apologists who twist the bible scripture to fit modern thinking. Being accused of working for Satan because you have a different view on life also just shows that Judean / muslim and christian religions are not tollerant or accepting of either each other nor other beliefs.

  No, there is nothing wrong in wanting an eternal life and feeling good all the time, why not?? . but wouldn't that get boring after a while? There is nothing wrong with belieiving in what you want to. I'd not want to spend all the rest of eternity praising the lord and his wisdom just to relieve his vanity.

  Perhaps Bhuddist monks are closer to the truth of finding that heaven within?? The are atheists.
• 

  cofty

  In your discussions do you prefer using the bible and religion as part or most of your argument or do you prefer debate purely on scientific and philosophical grounds? Are you totaly convinced of your position or are you openminded and occasionally consider that your position could be wrong; possibly even hope you are?

  Why do you contrast being totally convinced of your position with being open minded? I am totally convinced there is no evidence for theism but I am open to new evidence.

  For me that is what it means to be an atheist; its more than just not believing in a god, it’s a positive statement regarding a commitment to evidence and naturalism. Atheists who reject god but accept equally superstitous beliefs like homeopathy or astrology are inconsistent.

  As others have said already you can't separate theism from the bible. It would be possible to argue for a vague sort of deism and reject the bible but I have yet to meet a believer who wants to do that. Efforts to separate Jesus from OT monster are not intellectually honest. Jesus was steeped in OT Jewish law and practice as were his followers until they were thrown out of the synagogues. Christians want to pick and choose what they like and dislike in the bible while still claiming it is inspired.

  I don't hope I am wrong, I think life in heaven would be like living in an eternal North Korea.
• 

  trailerfitter

  Has the washtowler got shares in North Korea?
• 

  sizemik

  One of the criticisms I have is that many athiests cannot resist using the bible and religion as a strawman.

  I'm not sure that this is purely a "strawman" argument. Any supporting claim for Atheism will naturally involve criticism of the evidence presented for Theism which will in almost every case be a religious stance . . . and in many cases involve the citing of religious writings.

  Theists also indulge in the same when debunking archaelogy or scientific "theory" which is inferentially critical of a Theist argument. Neither really presents a "strawman" argument but is necessarily the other side of the coin in the totality of the debate.

  The critical difference with the two sides is that the Theist argues from the armchair of personal faith, whilst the Atheist is often not afforded, or even asks for, the same luxury.

  The Atheist is normally such, for the want of evidence to the contrary. The Theist is normally such in spite of it.

  Open-mindedness is a greater challenge for the Theist because his belief is not restricted to the mind alone IMO.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Onthewayout, pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and Odin are all fairytale strawmen. I didn't intend this thread to turn into a discussion about the existence of a creator. Although I believe in such existence and enjoy rational discussion about it, I feel no obligation to prove such existence to anyone. It's up to each person is his or her own way to decide.

  My point is that they are all strawmen. "We" use the Bible because most believers we discuss things with are believers in the God of the Bible.

  I also wanted to point out that your comment on "openminded" suggests something- that atheists need to consider that the fairytale God of the Bible is real. That makes "rational discussion" difficult as believers define what is rational despite it being based on fairytales. So I pointed out that people can be "openminded" and still not consider that particular irrational belief.

  I was totally serious when I said there could be lifeforms way beyond us that provided the spark of life. But that still leaves the question of where they came from.

  I am not trying to start any argument. My main side point is that every phrase or word we use does start arguments making real "rational" discussion nearly impossible.
• 

  tec

  Not in the least. If I want to know if a guy is a total dick or not, I don't look at what his son does, I look at what HE does.

  True. But you (or those who look at the OT first) are not looking at what HE does. You're looking at what some people wrote that he does, a few thousand years ago. You're not looking at HIM at all.

  People could say all sorts of things and believe all sorts of things about you too... but that doesn't make them true. The only way to know is to know you.

  Under new management, so to speak.

  So this guy Jesus says, hey, God... move over, I'm in and you're out?

  Or he says what he actually said, "If you have seen me, you have seen my Father."

  God does not change. Only our understanding of Him does.

  As far as the Jesus guys truths, well, he only said the same thing the buddha was saying 500 years before him and the Bablyonians were saying 1500 years before that, don't be a dick to people. Hardly revolutionary or a new truth.

  Precisely!

  They are not new truths at all. (so not new management) They are old truths (original truths and ways) that the Israelites had forgotten or misunderstood, or misused, or lost under all of their many many laws. Christ came to correct them, and show them Truth as it was in the beginning.

  Exodus 20:5, he shall punish the children for the sins of the father, to the third and fourth generation. What a dick.

  Read Ezekiel 18:2. I don't want to type the whole thing out, though I could if anyone else wants to see it here. The prophet is going to great lengths to show the people that the son does not pay for the father's sins, and the father will not pay for the son's sins. The one who sins is the one who is punished/pays/whatever.

  Part of it: "The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son."

  So there is a contradiction. A prophet is trying to correct a false belief of the Israelites (they're even arguing with him about this).

  So look to CHRIST over what is being argued even in the OT as a false belief.

  I really like the parts where he said slavery was bad or that women weren't property or don't kill gay people. Oh, wait, human rights wasn't on his agenda...what did he correct again? Don't kill birds to his dad?

  Do unto others...

  Love others as yourself...

  That kinda covers it. Then there is also the way HE treated women. He never treated anyone as property or as lesser beings. He spoke to women, he praised Mary for choosing to listen to him over cooking and serving the men as her sister did, and refused to take that away from her.

  I'm not sure that he corrected the don't sacrifice to God, as you're saying. Perhaps I missed that. If you could point it out?

  But he also corrected matters of divorce, matters where the people showed 'justice' instead of mercy, of turning the other cheek instead of striking back, of loving EVEN one's enemies instead of hating them, of forgiving EVERY time someone sins against you, of walking by faith and not sight, etc, etc, etc.

  I could probably find more. Those are off the top of my head.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Here's something I think non-believers would agree to:

  If believers are willing to discuss the topic without referring to any religious trappings (the Bible, etc.) then the non-believers are, too.

  But when believers refer to religion when discussing the possibility of a God, then religion becomes a fair-game part of the argument.
• 

  Awen

  @ Mad Sweeney

  While I can see your point I also see an inherent problem with it.

  Please bear with me and please also do not take my words as an unkindness or judgement of yourself. I have nothing but the greatest of respect for you.

  But when believers refer to religion when discussing the possibility of a God, then religion becomes a fair-game part of the argument.

  The problem with this is us believers are often asked to cite our sources. "Where did you get this information from? Where can I read it for myself?"

  Without being able to reference the Bible, us believers are left in somewhat of a pickle. Especially when you consider that the non-believers are allowed to quote from scientific journals, respected authors in their fields and so on and so forth. If someone like Shelby or myself says "I received this from my Lord", then we are seen as nuts or just making it up as no one else can seemingly verify this information on their own (which isn't true at all of course). But because the information isn't readily available on a webpage or a published book, it's dismissed. I myself only use the Bible because that is what most everyone on this forum is used to and even then only the parts I am sure haven't been tampered with overly much.

  I could relate at length what my Lord has told me, but it wouldn't be credible. Certainly not something a person could submit to a court. I say court because I often feel as though I am on trial, having my sanity and intelligence questioned by non-believers who resort to name calling yet can't seem to refute my stance on a particular subject.

  So without being able to cite the Bible and personal gnosis what other sources are left to believers like myself?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  MS makes a good point. Lawyers are sometimes not allowed to cross examine on certain subjects unless the person testifying opened the door by bringing in that certain subject.

  If a believer or agnostic wants to stick with philosophy and/or science, that would be fine with most atheists.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  You're not looking at HIM at all.

  Then HE needs to get better material out there. The same is true with the Jesus. Just looking at what some guys wrote. Need to fix that.

  So this guy Jesus says, hey, God... move over, I'm in and you're out?

  I wasn't there, I don't know how it went down. Perhaps it was a peaceful transition of power. Given God's propensity to kill the ever loving shit out of anyone that had to audacity to live in the wrong place be descended from the wrong humans, it may have been a little more conflicted.

  They are not new truths at all. (so not new management)

  So yes it is. God was the management, killing everything and loving forskins was his product. Jesus came along as new management and loving everything was his product. New mangement AND new product, at least for him. It was a ripped off product from others, but new to him.

  So there is a contradiction. A prophet is trying to correct a false belief of the Israelites (they're even arguing with him about this).

  So which belief was false?

  That kinda covers it. Then there is also the way HE treated women.

  I know. He couldn't even mention it. Words matter too. All that time talking and not even one sentence. Must not have been that important to him.