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

by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  tec

  Were in the realm of semantics again . . . "evidence" to some amounts to a personal supernatural experience, to others it refers to that which is demonstrable and evident to all. The former is irrelevant to anybody apart from the one undergoing the supernatural experience, and cannot be challenged with counter evidence . . . so what's the point?

  Well, the gospel accounts are available to all (now anyway; not always). Other testimonies about Christ (or whomever) are available. More than one religion wants a 'piece' of Him (as in fit him in their beliefs somewhere, as a prophet, or whatever... because few deny the truths he spoke)

  Belief in a creator(s) has always e x isted, and that knowledge is available to all. There are similar truths running through most all religions... that can be evidence that they started in the same place and spread out (much like languages). At the very least it shows that some 'morals' are common. Some might say evolutionary need is responsible for all of this; and some might say that there is truth to all of this (a creator/a spiritual realm), and that is where it stemmed from. In either case, that knowledge is availabel to all (or at least all of us, here) What we do with that evidence is up to us.

  Personal e x periece/evidence can help strengthen one's own faith in the above (and sometimes others' faith as well). I don't think anyone, here, e x pects their own personal experience to be evidence for someone else. Perhaps just something for them to think about... and is shared most often when asked about.

  But the rest is there for everyone. It is enough for some to keep an open mind, and perhaps build faith upon. Not enough for others.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  xchange

  TEC: snipped....You brought the point out against believers, and I just wondered if you saw that atheists do the same thing in their arguments....snipped
  My main reason for joining in this thread was the statement that the evidence provided by party ‘A’ is not accepted by party ‘B’ because the evidence isn’t 'good' enough. I attempted to explain that it’s not just a matter of arbitrarily saying ‘it’s not good enough’ and therefore I reject your claim. Instead, for many atheists, a systematic approach is utilized to determine the validity of the claim or assertion. Of course, not everyone engages in this manner. I personally believe in the rigor of scrutinizing any claim to the best of my ability so that I’m fully satisfied that I’m not being duped. Name calling is just superfluous in my opinion.

  TEC: snipped....As to the Filchers... what makes these reasons an authority on what constitutes a good argument?...snippped
  Assigning a supposed authority to this test seems odd to me. It has no more authority than asking a simple question to extrapolate more information. It’s merely a systematic approach that has been proven to be useful. It’s a tool. There are all sorts of hammers in any given tool box. The end result is what is important - is the claim reasonably valid or not. The evidence/non-evidence exposed and identified by applying the FiLCHeRS (or other methods) is what drives the test. Twitch - You're welcome! (From a fellow Canuck)

  spacing
• 

  tec

  I personally believe in the rigor of scrutinizing any claim to the best of my ability so that I’m fully satisfied that I’m not being duped.

  I take no issue with that at all. There are many dupers out there; as well as many innocently misled people. We should test and scrutinize claims being made. Peace, Tammy
• 

  cofty

  Well, the gospel accounts are available to all

  In what way do you think that amounts to evidence?

  Belief in a creator(s) has always existed, and that knowledge is available to all

  Many beliefs were common in a pre-scientific world. The veracity of a belief has nothing to do with how common it is.

  Can you think of any objective evidence you can point to that suggests theism is true?
• 

  cantleave

  Sizemik - no hard feelings at all!!!!
• 

  cantleave

  Double post!
• 

  tec

  In what way do you think that amounts to evidence?

  Written testimonial evidence.

  Many beliefs were common in a pre-scientific world. The veracity of a belief has nothing to do with how common it is.

  Can you think of any objective evidence you can point to that suggests theism is true?

  The fact that every civilization and culture, throughout time, has developed or evolved or was born with a seeking out or belief in a creator (s), is objective. It is enough to create a hypothesis that all people had a desire for or knowledge of something real... rather than something imagined. That there are other hypothesis as well does not mean that this one is displaced.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  When we look into the evolution of humans, we find that for the vast majority of history there actually was no evidence that they sought a creator or a spirit realm. Neanderthal buried their dead and perhaps left a few momentos, so that is the earliest evidence we have of possible spirituality. But where are the Neanderthals today? Other archaic humans showed no evidence of spirituality and limited symbolic thinking. But if they were our ancestors, why didn't they seek a creator . . .?

  Is this creator only relevant to modern humans and possibly neandertal? If this was a force that always was and was not created to answer the questions that enlarging brains encountered, then were pre H. sapiens unimportant to it?

  We can actually track the development of spiritual thought and watch it grow more elaborate with time. There will certainly be continued discoveries to fill in the story. It's a very human story at that. However if a person believes that we are born spiritual, that it was put into us in some way, then wouldn't it make more sense that this spiritual realm more closely resembled the realm understood by humans at the awakening of such thought? Paganism.

  If humans are 150,000 years old, why have we only received this written testimony 4000 years ago? Humans were clearly capable of such thoughts long before this, and actually put them down into writing. Why should the gospels be taken as evidence when they only appear so late in the game? Cave paintings would be much more authentic.

  NC
• 

  tec

  If this was a force that always was and was not created to answer the questions that enlarging brains encountered, then were pre H. sapiens unimportant to it?

  I don't know much about pre H. sapiens. But speaking of H. sapiens, we have had belief in every culture as far back as we can trace ourselves. Which is much farther than 4000 years ago. I mean, ancient egypt can be traced farther back than that, right? Ancient eastern religions. Native americans devolped spirituality; isolated tribes, etc.

  Doesn't have to be writings either. Could also be artifacts and/or drawings.

  I found this, which tells of a religious artifact from 70,000 years ago (found by a Canadian ). Thought that was interesting.

  http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=5bd5b048-3376-4f9a-acff-9b4fd1f4bea9

  Why should the gospels be taken as evidence when they only appear so late in the game?

  Gospels are evidence because that is what they are. Valid or not, though, that is up to you. I think the truth of Christ's teachings make them valid, even without personal evidence.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  cantleave

  The gospels are not contemporanious and will contain embellishments.

  Surely if the miracles of jebuz occured they would have been recorded by the meticulous record keeping Romans.