Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is.............

by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cedars

  cofty - I am not suggesting that you are influenced by Dawkins, or a puppet of his, and nothing you have written would lead me to that conclusion. Please don't take offense at what I've written, because I have a lot of respect for you. If you feel you have enough information to reach the conclusion that every living thing on this planet evolved from a common ancestor through a completely unguided process, then good for you. It's dogmatism that I'm arguing against. I've put up with enough of it whilst in the Borg, and I'm afraid of stumbling upon it here too (i.e. on the forum). Incidentally, evolutionary belief is not necessarily in dispute here (although I'm a bit dubious on how amino acids could have formed proteins). Even if you convince yourself that there was no divine hand in the development of life on earth, even at a cellular level, what about the formation of the cosmos, the big bang? These are all issues that are the subject of furious debate by theoretical physicists and astronomers, so nobody can say with certainty exactly how it all began. Why, therefore, the need to be dogmatic? I hope this demonstrates my point, but please don't think I'm out to demean you or anyone else, because I'm really not. I hate this kind of debate, which is why I was reticent to get involved in the first place.

  Qcmbr - again, you're assuming that all creationists take the bible literally. There are many that don't. I wish it was as simple as "all creationists believe in noah's flood", but it really isn't.

  cantleave - again, the argument is interchangeable. One could say "I see order", "I see laws of physics at work in the natural world", "I see complex organisms" show me a workable theory that can be proven under scientific conditions in which all of this can come about, even on a much smaller scale, from nothing. As I said before, I don't have to prove anything to you because I don't have strong feelings either way. My issue is with dogmatism in the absense of solid irrefutable evidence, not with supporting either Creationism or Atheism. I do hope you understand, and as with Cofty, pleeease don't take this personally mate, because I like you loads and I'm really not that bothered either way.

  Cedars
• 

  Mickey mouse

  But there IS a fire breathing dragon in my garage cantleave.
• 

  cofty

  Please don't take offense at what I've written, because I have a lot of respect for you.

  No offence taken. Its important not to be rushed or cajouled into any conclusions, your determination to be undecided until further notice is a virtue.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Cedars - just to be picky, I wasn't assuming that all Xians are fundamentalists ( that would be silly ) I was merely pointing out that the proposition you seem uncertain on ( xianity which is bible based just as Islam is Koran based) contains lots of fact less stories and are therefore directly comparable to unicorns ( aren't they in the bible anyway ? ) and faeries ( mini angels ? ).

  Evolution is actually proven if anything can actually be said to have been proven by evidence. It is the most researched and fact backed and based explanation for variety and change in life. There is no other hypothesis that can explain the facts , none, that isn't arrogant that's just evidential certainty ( just the same as saying the surface of the sun is hot isn't just being dogmatic.)

  Edit apologies for my awful mangled syntax. I'm very tired :)
• 

  tec

  You and I both, I believe, are not saying that the believer is "Irrational and unintelligent" as a person, just that their belief is. And by the same token, it is the belief that atheists attack, not the whole person, and to attack a belief, showing it to be irrational and unintelligent,

  does not make one a bigot.

  You and Size are may not be doing this... but there are atheists who DO do this. Even on this thread. That is your militant/fundamentalist atheist.

  Uber you said this:

  the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges/claims

  Earlier you said this:

  A religious person cannot be intelligent or rational.

  This is a charge/claim... that by your own stance... has the burden of proof lying upon you. Yes?

  And yet again (I think the 5th time, the other 4 times it has been ignored by the theists of this forum) I will post Martin's argument of acceptable disbelief

  Who is Martin, and why should I care what he has to say? (that is a sincere question; not a confrontational one) But since you have said that theists are ignoring it (I never saw it before just now; or I must have overlooked it if I did), I'll go through his statements with you.

  A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if

  (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and

  Who decides what is adequate or not?

  (2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and

  Well, the only problem in that sentence is that it contains the word 'presumption' when talking about proving something. Presumptions can be wrong and often are. Would you allow a believer get away with a presumption?

  (3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and

  Well, if you're the one making the presumption, then don't you have to be the one to prove that the presumption is valid?

  (4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and

  (5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists.

  4 and 5 seem to go together.

  I find no fault with these. Of course, 'beneficial' reasons would have to be agreed upon too, right?

  Curious about your thoughts on these.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  cedars

  cofty - thanks for that, glad we're cool.

  Qcmbr - woh, slow down there! Where did Xians or Xianism suddenly spring into the picture?! I don't remember writing anything about that, and I don't think I would either because I haven't a clue about that stuff. Is that something I should know about? As I explained to Cofty, I am not against evolution per se, in fact I'm on neither camp. If you took my survey, you might remember what one of the issues with the GB was that they refuse to accept ANY aspects of evolutionary theory. It really isn't as simple as evolution v creation, because to my knowledge you can believe in an intelligent creator, but still believe in evolution. Please tell me if those two things are mutually exclusive. Many would argue that they aren't.

  Cedars
• 

  Qcmbr

  Sry - yep you said creationists. My bad.
• 

  sizemik

  You and I both, I believe, are not saying that the believer is "Irrational and unintelligent" as a person, just that their belief is. And by the same token, it is the belief that atheists attack, not the whole person, and to attack a belief, showing it to be irrational and unintelligent, does not make one a bigot. . . . wobble

  Of course . . . it's simply the answer to the question. When I "believed", it began with a lack of knowledge . . . then the wrong knowledge to the point of becoming irrational (JW). Now I have much more reliable knowledge than previously, even if it doesn't answer all my questions. Intelligence lives or dies on reliable knowledge. Intelligence is usually synonomous with knowledge. I feel it is irrational to believe something 100% that is not demonstrably provable . . . even in some small way. It's neither rational nor logical as a belief . . . but there still might be a rational and logical explanation for it's existence.
• 

  wobble

  This thread has ranged over a number of subjects, and the comments have been great, and enlightening too. My motive for starting it was not to get at dear Mickey, but to challenge the concept of "Fundamental" or "Militant" atheists.

  I am sure that some exist, those who say that it is 100% sure that there is no "god" of any kind, no realm beyond the physical universe. This position has been called "Strong" atheist by some, and I think that is to be preferred.

  I have never met a "strong" atheist.(atheist bigot) All the atheists I have met or spoken to, are open-minded enough to say that some sort of evidence for something outside of our universe may come along in the future.

  But, we require satisfactory ,testable, evidential facts, the kind that would stand up in court and the kind that would satsify the most sceptical scientific experts,to accept anything less is to leave oneself open to believing the kind of nonsense JW's do.

  To mangle both J.B.S Haldane and Shakespeare, we atheists usually follow the dictum "There are more things in heaven and earth than can even be dreamed of in our philosophy"
• 

  cedars

  Qcmbr - no worries, it's easy to get confused, I should know.

  Sizemik - I agree with everything you say. I hope you understand that my whole argument in this thread is not that creationism is right, or that atheism is right, but that dogmatism in the absence of certainty is wrong. You seem to reflect this in your comment:

  I have much more reliable knowledge than previously, even if it doesn't answer all my questions. Intelligence lives or dies on reliable knowledge. Intelligence is usually synonomous with knowledge. I feel it is irrational to believe something 100% that is not demonstrably provable . . . even in some small way.

  It is the issue of dogmatism that drew me to this thread. Threads that simply argue for or against atheism don't normally interest me, because it's simply one person's opinion versus another, and I don't consider myself sufficiently informed on the subject to make meaningful contributions on either side. Plus, dogmatic statements in favour of atheism OR creationism tend to put me off. I'm not against dogmatism if you are in posession of facts that can refute the issue in question. I'm purely against dogmatism when facts or evidence are at a premium. With this in mind, how can anybody categorically say that belief in an intelligent beginning to, say, the universe is an irrational or unintelligent hypothesis?

  This obviously brings us to the title of this thread. Was anybody there at the big bang? Is there a consensus within the scientific community that would irrefutably rule out even the slightest possibility of intelligent intervention in either the big bang or the order we see within the cosmos? To my knowledge, the answer to both questions is "no". If anybody has hard evidence to the contrary, please step forward and I will happily yield. Maybe I'm just over-sensitive to dogmatism having only just escaped from the grip of one of its worst possible manifestations - a cult. Dogmatic assertions such as the one expressed in the title to this thread are unquestionably more benevolent, but that doesn't necessarily make them fair or accurate.

  Wobble:

  This thread has ranged over a number of subjects, and the comments have been great, and enlightening too. My motive for starting it was not to get at dear Mickey, but to challenge the concept of "Fundamental" or "Militant" atheists.

  That's a very commendable motive. I hope you will forgive me for reacting so strongly to the thread. Hopefully the reaction it has illicited has prompted greater thought on the subject. The important thing is to always ask questions, such as the one you posed. That is the essence of remaining open-minded.