Atheists Are More Advantaged Than The Religious Teachers!

by exWTslave 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • galaxie
    galaxie

    Hi FHN,...I agree its not our duty to convince others to believe as we do, although many in religious circles do have that conviction.

    Debate discussion, argument even Iis probably why we utilise this forum, by which we can gauge others views, beliefs and their reasons for such.

    Thankyou for your reply.

    Re inculcation, its my understanding that a young child comes to a belief in an idea or entity through repetition of the subject, the example being formal education.

    Repetition is used(eg times tables)to inculcate the students mind.This then remains(hopefully) to benefit them in later life.

    Likewise other ideas are repetitively fed to children, belief in santa, fairies, giants, ghosts, witches for example can be repeatedly

    introduced to the young immature mind so that they do believe they are real. It is only as they grow older these notions are realised to be no more than stories, mainly

    because they realise their older peer group do not believe these things. However in the case of god belief if that peer group continues to believe ,

    Its more likely the young person will still hold that belief . Personally imo I fail to understand how they could come to a reasoned belief in god as truly real at such an early age.

    Thats why I think most continue to believe, and of course a belief so deeply held is extremely difficult to give up, even with sound adult reasoning on the

    possibility of such a being existing. That's why I come to the conclusion there has to be an adult reason for continuous belief in god.

    Each will know what that reason is .I.m.o its all to do with a need within that individuals phsych which probably relates to inculcation from childhood.

    In my humble opinion of course.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Some argue that science proves to them that there is no god or gods, goddesses or deities - FHN

    I have never encountered anybody who thinks that.

    Science makes god redundant. It destroys the need for a creator.

    It is also very easy to show that any particular god doesn't exist. However as long as you stay vague enough about what you mean by god nobody can ever prove you wrong. Congratulations!

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Science makes god redundant. It destroys the need for a creator.- cofty

    Give me an example please, this statement is a fallacy. Science cannot prove God does not exist, hence science does not make God redundant. Many scientists believe in God.

    Kate xx

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I don't think a specific example would be in the spirit of cofty's statement because the meaningfulness of the statement is in its generality. Science can explain the origin of the world and living things around us, therefore there is no need to say "God did it". In that sense, God is not a necessary variable in the equation of how we got here and is "redundant".

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow

    Science makes god redundant. It destroys the need for a creator.- cofty

    You say creator. You don't believe God is a creator. Your statement is a matter of opinion, something personal.

    Is there a need for God though? This gives me an idea for a future thread topic.

    I will get back to you on the vagueness of God. I started writing a reply, but I've got phone calls to make and bills to pay.

    I understand where you are coming from, better, after reading about your experiences with church after you left the JWs. I'm not sure how similar Baptist churches are in England, to ones here in the states. I know that I have had problems with the Baptist very harsh concept of God, now and really ever since I was a child. Next to Jehovah, the Baptist God is not much different except that he micromanages the lives of human beings a bit less and promises eternal torment.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Science can explain the origin of the world and living things-Apogs

    I disagree, as a chemical ananlyst I would say science explains atoms but does not explain how atoms became living things. Personally science has not satisfied my enquiring mind, and I am still making enqiries as to the explaination of living things.

    Many people are satisfied with what science has to offer, that is their perogative. Thank you for answering the question though.

    Kate xx

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I did hesitate to use the word "origin" in my post because evolution is concerned with the origin of species but not the origin of life, as you know. The origin of life is the subject of abiogenesis, the theories of which are on much less solid ground than evolution. The ultimate origin of the universe itself, as an organized system, is even harder to explain. Of course, science continues to make progress in answering these questions. And I think some theories in abiogenesis are pretty plausible.

    So in a way I agree with you that it's an amazing thing that life came about, that science isn't quite able to explain it yet, and that it might indicate an intelligent force was behind the universe. However, you wrote above that "atoms became living things". I would like to suggest to you an alternate way of looking at life. Please see my post here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/268638/6/Questions-on-Evolution-and-the-Existence-of-God-and#4916253.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Apogs,

    I have had a look through the 7 page thread. I have concluded that this debate can go on and on. I enjoy gettting involved and putting forward my opinions. At present nothing has convinced me there is no creator. Having said this, I am fully convinced God does not care about humans enough to stop suffering. Hence I am not in a very good mood with him right now.

    Kate xx

  • Viviane
  • Viviane
    Viviane

    Give me an example please, this statement is a fallacy. Science cannot prove God does not exist, hence science does not make God redundant. Many scientists believe in God.

    Cofty just said he doesn't know anyone who think science proves no gods or godesses cannot exist, but he has said previously that science can conclusively prove the god in the bible doesn't exist. The statement you are quoting from him, about god being redundant, isn't saying no gods exist.

    He's simply saying that, in the past, places where "God did it" was the answer now have actual answers that aren't "God" or "Jesus".

    At present nothing has convinced me there is no creator.

    If that is your measure for deciding if things exist, then you should also believe in:

    - Unicorns

    - Bigfoot

    - Chupacabra

    - Harpies

    - Medusa

    - Zeus

    - Ewah

    - Cetan

    - Chakora

    -....

    And a host of other myths and legends.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit