Challenge to Creationists

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  I'm not a theist. I'm somebody who thinks dogmatism is ridiculous in all its forms. A couple of years ago I might have said I was agnostic or atheist. Now I think it's more agnostic 50/50 could go either way. I can't explain how we can understand our world if there is no being beyond being to explain how minds that can contemplate themselves arose. I'm about 99% sure evolution is a better explanation of life than creationism. But I've changed my mind about a lot of things.

  Never say never again!

  For me the lesson of my encounter with JW certaintism is not to replace it with another, but to embrace uncertainty, diversity, and the double edged persistent threat/possibility of being wrong.
• 

  DJS

  SBF,

  Well stated. Thank you.
• 

  Simon

  Ah, the old stalwart - since we don't know something with 100% certainty, let's assume every argument has an equal chance of being valid.

  Funny, that argument is almost always exclusively the domain of those who have zero evidence for, and lots of evidence against, their position.

  There simply aren't 50/50 odd for their being a god just as there aren't 50/50 odds that there is a pink teapot now orbiting Jupiter that I am unable to disprove. There is a chance, sure, a very, very, very slim one. About the same chance that there is a god.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I never said because there is not 100% certainty therefore all arguments are equally valid. I'm just saying why rule anything out.

  I find it curious when I tell Cofty I believe in evolution with about 99% certainty he finds that so objectionable. What is it about the last 1% that is so vitally important? We can always leave the door open for the possibility of being wrong. What practical difference does it make to say you believe evolution 100% rather than 99%? It seems obsessive and dogmatic.
• 

  EdenOne

  I accept that life developed according to mechanisms explained by evolution; since there is no sufficient evidence that supports a credible explanation yet as to how life started in the first place, I leave that not-so-little unknown to uncertainty. A divine entity of sorts then becomes a possibility (albeit a very unlikely one, given the odds); hence I am an agnostic in principle and not an atheist.

  However, a different sort of debate is: If a pre-existing intelligent form of life started life on earth purposely, does that entity resembles anything that any of the religions of the earth claim that divinity is? And does such entity require anything from me? On what grounds? Why should such entity merit my worship and obedience more than a biological father that abandoned me before I was even born would merit my affection? The way I see it, I see no reason to bother with a divinity that shows no observable care for me. Therefore I'm an apatheist.

  EdenOne
• 

  jacobm

  I have a hard time comprehending why someone would spend this much time on a public forum debating and trying to change other's minds. Didn't we stop that when we left the JWs? I mean, anyone can watch YouTube videos, research papers, or take an Anthropology course at the local Community College.

  But hey, to each his own.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I completely agree with you jacobm. I find it really tiring how some people relentlessly try to persuade others on the forum to adopt their own viewpoint as the absolute truth. It's pathetic and JWesque. And I'm going to keep telling them so until they see things in a properly relativistic manner as I do!
• 

  Simon

  I think there is a big difference between proselytising and challenging misinformation and ignorance. The world is a better place WHEN religion is challenged and beaten down vs when it's allowed to run rampant and uncontrolled (whichever religion).

  There is no church of atheism that you have to attend or donations to hand over. Completely different.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Increasing people's level of knowledge about the world is a good thing.

  Presenting factual information on evolution to those who [are in]/[deciding whether to leave]/[just left] a cult where this information is hidden, distorted and proper research is forbidden, is a good thing.

  In some parts of the world people believe having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS if you have that. Telling those people over and over again that their belief is contradicted by the facts and dangerous, is a good thing. Yes, they might not like it. Yes, they might present anecdotal 'evidence' to show they are right. They might argue 'well, it might work so I try just in case'. But at least presenting the correct info to them is a good thing.

  It's not like we are knocking on creationists' doors here. There are some threads with information on evolution. Everyone is free to ignore them, read them, or even participate.

  Anyone who feels Cofty's threads are in contradiction with their beloved creationist faith can just ignore them and carry on with their day. But anyone who thinks they should litter their creationist misinformation on those threads is fair game. If you're so damn sure about creation, start your own thread and present the information you have. Just don't misrepresent the facts please.

  [rant mode off]
• 

  cofty

  I find it curious when I tell Cofty I believe in evolution with about 99% certainty he finds that so objectionable. - SBF

  No I don't. 99% is excellent progress. You just need to keep reading and give up that post-modern deconstructionist B/S.