Posts by Saethydd

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

The study of soul predates Christianity.
While the soul cannot be reached through the scientific method it's reached through philosophy and is a philosophical subject of study. I think the only "leap of faith" is the soul is immortal or not. If you think the word soul is too much religious you can use the word software. The word soul was originated outside religion.
It can be reached through intuition too. Search your own intuition and you will see.

Short answer, he doesn't have any objective and verifiable evidence. It's all based on how you feel about it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

Humans came to existence by natural laws (evolution).
They developed a very sophisticated mind but they were not conscious (That's why Adam and Eve didn't knew about good and bad). They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.
In a very recent point in history (in Mesopotamia) God elevated human nature by giving an immortal soul to a couple of "bicameral" humans (Adam and Eve). This soul enables humans to have consciousness.
This process of unification between physical and spiritual nature in humans was interrupted by this couple someway somehow.
So the full conscious human nature was broken.
This broken human nature are being repaired in a masterplan since then and will be complete in the Last Judgment.

Okay, so that means we are back to a God that isn't all-knowing and all-powerful. Because if he were those things then he would have been capable of "introducing consciousness" to humankind without screwing it up. Now because this God you envision is in contradiction with the God of the Bible that means your God didn't inspire the Bible, or that your God doesn't care or is incapable of making the Bible accurately portray him. In either case, the Bible can't be trusted to tell you anything about God.

So my question remains: Where do you get your evidence for this God you are envisioning that is clearly not God as he is described in the Bible?

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

Saethydd

I would argue that, as with any similarity, religion is good for cohesion within a group who all believe in exactly the same religion. People are generally going to be more comfortable with people who are more like themselves than people who are completely different. The cohesion is often lost because eventually different factions form in most religions. (Judaism splitting to Christianity for example) This is because human beings have other attributes that fight against the cohesion and conformity found in religion.

Two of those qualities are creativity and curiosity, both of which are lethal to dogma which is a common thread in most religions.

Progress, however, requires a steady balance between the order provided by cohesive conformity, and the freedom that comes with creative curiosity. It seem that religious leaders, typically prefer to be the ones doing all the creative thinking though, which slows down progress tremendously.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

Ah, but "necessary evils" are only necessary in human actions, because humans are not all-powerful.

If humans were all powerful medical procedures wouldn't be needed.

And natural laws are indifferent. So if the natural laws come from God then he isn't all-loving, he is indifferent.

If you want to say that God is either not all-powerful or is indifferent to humans then I'd be willing to consider it, but I would challenge how you acquired your knowledge about such a being.

16

"You are my witnesses says Jehovah"

by NikL in

jw
friends

"you are my witnesses says jehovah".. this is going to show you how poor my knowledge of the bible has been.. i thought there was a scripture that says the quoted phrase (at least in nwt).

i could swear that i heard it for years quoted in talks.. i went to find it this morning and found nothing of the sort.

am i an anomaly or do any of you remember this as well?.

Saethydd

That weird split is happening in a bunch of threads, I think Simon is working on it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

I got this one cofty. Because an all-powerful AND an all-loving creator wouldn't put innocent people in harm's way.

If he's all powerful that means he can save innocents, if he's all-loving that means he's motivated to save innocents. When motive is combined with ability in that regard, then no innocent people would be getting killed.

But they are getting killed. Which means either God can't save all the innocent people, or he's refusing to do it. Making him either ineffectual, or kind of a jerk.

Though, as I have stated, I believe the most probable situation is simply that no deity exists at all.

11

Book That Helped Me - My Recommended Reading List

by doubtfull1799 in

these are the books that led to my awakening:.

the art of thinking clearly - rolf dobelli.

how to defend the christian faith: advice from an evolutionist - john w.loftus.

Saethydd

Thanks, I'm going to look at as many of these as I can. It might not have any information new to you, but I have found Lloyd Evan's "Reluctant Apostate" to be very informative book, especially as a resource for helping anyone who doesn't know much about JWs to understand the position people like us are in right now.

14

My story

by victory in

my name is collins.

i am from nigeria.

i was born in the year 1997. i was raised by witness parents.

Saethydd

Wow, I can very much relate to this, I got baptized around 10 too, though I didn't get reproved until several years later. (They formed a judiciary committee for a 10/11-year-old? Wow! That is crazy.) I too am in an institution for higher education, disfellowshipped, and being compelled to go to meetings even though I hate them. I hope things work out well for both of us.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

For me, it basically comes down to probability.

Is it more probable that there is a God out there who cares enough about humanity to specially create us, but not to shield us from harm in our infancy? (Both as a species and as individuals) Or is it more likely that we are the rare result of the natural forces of the Universe?

Is it likely that the supernatural events recorded in the Bible, which have no confirmed modern events to parallel them, actually happened? Or is it more likely that they are simply another set of exaggerated stories that might be based very loosely on real events?

My belief in the supernatural, and by extension God is set at neutral and leans towards skeptical disbelief until such a time as I am given clear and objective evidence to the contrary. The fact that the state of Universe and humanity doesn't reflect what I would logically expect from a loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful creator merely reinforces that position, it is not the entire basis for it.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

Saethydd

Yes the Bible acknowledges death, predators, and natural disasters, but it does so by invoking victim blaming (sin), and basically saying it is our fault. This, however is inconsistent with a God that claims to be the embodiment of love. Because compassion and forgiveness are pretty important attributes of love, and they are not readily visible in the world around us.

Additonally, if the Bible truly came as a result of being inspired by a benevolent and all knowing being, then it would inevitably be scientifically, and prophetically accurate. So either God didn't inspire the Bible to the degree that it can be used as a guide to determine his will, or God is not all-knowing and is therefore a liar.