ah, deception must be so-o-o-o-o-o- easy when you can deal with people who have no critical thinking skills.. an amazing example?
the past november awake magazine !
the cover asks, "is belief in a creator reasonable?".
Metatron:
Please! I am in suspense here! What conclusion did Awake! come to?
I am assuming that because it used the word 'reasonable' it has examined the unbiased evidence and concluded that the WTBTS teachings were wrong, that creation is just a myth, and that the world really is older than 6,000 years.
Should I hold my breath?
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
Knowsnothing:
The flood? That falls at the 'plausability' stage I would say, without going into all the evidence which is out there. Less than 6,000 years ago the world population was reduced to 8 people in the Middle East?
As in the OP, those making the claim that gods exist are required to prove it (at least to those of us that require proof). Those who wish to believe will continue to do so regardless of what evidence is or is not available. Indeed, to some believers the more irrational their beliefs the greater their 'faith' and thus the 'stronger' they are.
Some, many, most, rational people would conclude that the 'creation' myth has been effectively disproved, that the 'creation' debate is over. But when we discuss religion 'rationality' is not frequently a recognised factor.
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
Knows nothing:
In this context, why do you believe that there is a difference between the 'gods'?
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
TD:
Isn't that the point? 'Thinking' Christians have to change and adapt their beliefs to keep them plausible and in line with accepted knowledge or the more 'unthinking' ones just shut their eyes and cling on blindly.
Change and adaptation or 'new light' in JW parlance go against the 'unchanging' nature of the god they profess.
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
TD: thanks for that. I stand corrected.
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
I really don't think that plausibility is a stumbling block to religious fundamentalists. They seem to have an ability to 'shut off' the questioning and reasoning part of their mind when it comes to their faith, to compartmentalise it, to resist the questions let alone seek to answer them.
My grandfather was a coal miner, a very tough man. In his younger days he was a bare-knuckle boxer and was a local champion. When he was 'converted' (I believe during one of the religious 'revivals' in the Welsh valleys) he became absolutely committed. He and a few friends built (literally) the gospel hall in their village (we knew it as the 'tin tabernacle' - but not in his hearing!). He believed the bible completely and literally. If thr bible had said that Jonah swallowed a whale, he would have believed that unquestioningly.
It's an interesting point about Galileo (could we equate it to the reception of Darwin's ideas later?). If you ask a 'fundie' about that issue today he'll perhaps find some biblical verse somewhere to 'show' that God said the Earth went round the Sun and if he's a fundie protestant he'll point out that RCs aren't really 'Christians' anyway.
The discussions about man's predisposition to religious or supernatural belief cite societal peer pressure as a very significant factor.
Your comment about the Puritans reminded me of the old quote (can't attribute it, sorry) which said that the Puritans left Britain in search of greater religious freedom - the freedom to persecute each other more than they had previously been allowed to do.
As for the Antipodes - which was the largest island in the world before Australia was discovered?
Australia.
Cheers
does it concern vampires in the church?.
well, it does concern vampires........but....not yet in the church.. .
thus......like jesus.....vampires in the church.. .
I remember when I first came across the books of Maccabees (many years ago). The discovery raised some questions in my mind.
First was why these books weren't in the protestant bibles I was used to - which led to a whole lot of other questions ...
More importantly, I was trying to research the context in which the NT books came about. It seemed strange to me that the OT stopped abruptly and then the 'Jesus' story started. A bit like bad continuity between the first and second series in a drama.
The Maccabees helped to fill that in (as did many external sources) and helped explain about 'zealots' etc. I vaguely remember something which suggested that Jesus may have had a claim of descent from the Hasmonean kings.
Finding out more about the 'context' gave me more understanding about concepts such as 'render unto Caesar' and 'go the extra mile' - and helped me to see the NT and development of 'Christianity' in a more realistic light.
could we discuss our reaction to bertrand russell's quote below?.
if i were asked to prove that zeus and poseidon and hera and the rest of the olympians do not exist, i should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
an agnostic may think the christian god as improbable as the olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.. .
'is there equivalency between the extraordinary claims of Christianty and Greek gods?'
IMHO, yes, absolutely - and the proposition can rightly be extended to all 'gods'. In different times and places people have believed/believe in their own gods just as enthusiatically as 'Christians' of whatever flavour do today. Lack of evidence doesn't seem to have ever been a bar to belief.
There are interesting discussions on the apparent predisposition of humans to 'need' a religion to believe in.
Scientific knowledge is increasingly rapidly, and its availability is increasing exponentially (for example, archaeology was in its infancy when C T Russell was doing his 'pyramidology' studies). In some cultures there is a growth in the number of people disposed to ask for proof, or at least a credible explanation.
And yet - there are a surprisingly large number of people in 'sophisticated' countries who believe that the world (and mankind) is 6,000 years old - JWs still teach it - and believe in one of the many creation myths despite all evidence to the contrary. That worries me a little, to be honest.
To the Greeks their gods were very real. One can sense this not only by visiting their temples and 'sacred sites' but vestiges remain today. In Paphos, Cyprus (the birthplace of Aphrodite (Venus), the 'goddess of love') they still hold the annual 'Katyklysmos' sea-based festival to commemorate her birth from the waves. The festival was later taken over by the Christian church (as were so many pagan festivals) as a celebration of the 'great flood' but they didn't really fool anybody.
As far as labels are concerned, I think most people understand 'agnostics' as 'doubters who haven't made their minds up' and atheists as 'those who say there is no god'. I'm an atheist.
PS: I'm no expert on 'Greek gods' but IIRC Hercules wasn't regarded as one, was he? I thought he was just one of the 'heroes'.
i am not, never have been a jw.
raised in the plymouth brethren, now am an atheist.. .
i've recently had the 'benefit' of a couple of fs visits which i've previously reported here.. .
Thanks very much for the responses.
The picture I get is predominantly one of apathetic (or at least unenthusiastic) JWs going door-to-door because they feel they 'have to' and being met with a complete lack of interest by those they call on. Generalisations, I know, but it's no wonder why so many ex-JWs say what a depressing waste of time it all was.
I liked Steve2's comment 'when mad meets mad'!
I agree with the point about apathy being more difficult to deal with than opposition. In a different context someone said that the opposite of love is not hate but apathy. In modern parlance the 'yeah, whatever' attitude.
A little off-topic, I have only come across 'apostacy' as a big deal in two religions. One is JWs, of course, although most of their efforts are (theoretically) dedicated to convincing others to become 'apostates' from their own religion. The other is Islam - the penalty under Sharia law is death. If a JW 'converted' a Muslim to JWism how would their respective gods handle that?
i am not, never have been a jw.
raised in the plymouth brethren, now am an atheist.. .
i've recently had the 'benefit' of a couple of fs visits which i've previously reported here.. .
'No Room For George' - sorry, I have no wish to make your position more difficult. I acce[t the points you make.
I have found through experience that often there is little point in entering discussion.
In an entirely different (but equally valid) context a distinguished commentator said: 'Why would you bother asking a Thai bar-girl a question when you know you can't believe the answer?'
