Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1392554 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
This point was brought up in another thread, and MattemAngel did say if we discussed it there it would skew the topic to become more of this thread's nature (which I agree), so let's discuss it here, because I think it's a good idea to clarify what validation means in regards to religion.
I noticed that you ignored the Bible as a "reliable source," so you're already biased towards the question, which is essentially a flame war waiting to happen.
Can the Bible be used as a reliable source to explain Christianity? I don't think it is applicable. Invoking the Bible, the tool used as a foundation for Christian Lore and beliefs, as a reliable source for information we're inquiring is to be convicted of Circular Reasoning. You can't use one source to prove nor explain the very same source--we get nowhere. It requires multiple, outside data 'mining',if you will, to wholly verify whether or not this piece of lore took place.
It's the same for Endosymbiotic Theory, something that wasn't under scientific consensus until recently. They never used the original findings to prove the original findings (though it did set a course for other studies to have a crack at it). It had to take multiple independent verification to finally accept Endosymbiotic Theory into scientific consensus.
From the other thread:
I noticed that you ignored the Bible as a "reliable source," so you're already biased towards the question
This is not (pron. not) indicative of any such bias. There are stringent limitations upon what sources can qualify as "reliable". At best, we may conclude that it meets two criteria; being a primary source, and having high spacial/temporal proximity to some of the events described. It falls far short of every other standard. It has no support from independent sources. It is derived from highly biased and conflicting accounts. It has been edited at length and rewritten several times over.
[Continuing stuff from this thread]
But I do have one question: Why did you decide to leave being a JW?
A biblical contradiction was pointed out to me here, with the conflicting reports of Jesus healing either one or two blind men on the way to or from a city, so I looked up what the JW stance on it was. They reconciled the city dilemma by stating that two cities with the same name were right next to each other, so he was walking between the cities when the healing occurred. As for the number of people healed, their response was basically that it doesn't matter, people make mistakes, who cares? But there's no point to covering one discrepancy and disregarding another whilst claiming that such stories are inerrant.
So, from what you are saying, that one discrepancy led you to abandon all religion? I have another question: Are both of your parents JW's, or is only your mother a JW? I read the posts that you linked me to.
A biblical contradiction was pointed out to me here, with the conflicting reports of Jesus healing either one or two blind men on the way to or from a city, so I looked up what the JW stance on it was. They reconciled the city dilemma by stating that two cities with the same name were right next to each other, so he was walking between the cities when the healing occurred. As for the number of people healed, their response was basically that it doesn't matter, people make mistakes, who cares? But there's no point to covering one discrepancy and disregarding another whilst claiming that such stories are inerrant.
It's all one big game of excuse making with no real grounding in anything.
So, from what you are saying, that one discrepancy led you to abandon all religion?
It was more of a catalyst for critical thinking. Digging deeper, the rest fell apart.
Are both of your parents JW's, or is only your mother a JW? I read the posts that you linked me to.
Just my mom. My dad's nonreligious, but that wasn't really an influence against it, as any resistance made him seem like the bad guy.
Some information for the next time you hear someone say that they think you don't understand the Bible has changed.
Bible Hunters - Resurrection of Christ - 200 AD, Gospel of Peter discovered in 1891.
.
Some information for the next time you hear someone say that they think you don't understand the Bible has changed.
Why would people be saying that, exactly?
Why would people be saying that, exactly?
Because xians always do? And they don't recognise (don't even hear about) like:
- there is no old and new "testimony". the titles are actually "covenant".
- the bible is no "testimony", as the earliest NC scripts were written like a hundred years after the first described event (ca. 80 CE).
- the NC was completed like 300 years CE (= by current era). Stuff like the resurrection of Jesus, or the gospels in general were added way later then the first text was written, and as I said, the texts got changed (added, altered) by time.
- the whole Bible is the result of a roman emperor-governed concensus.
@apldeap123
One? lol for you. Once you find one, you'll end at a thousand.
And not just a self-contradiction. Also historical inaccuracy, b* preaching, unscientific stuff, hatespeech - you name it, religion has it.
And the question: why should if one religion proven wrong just switch to another equally unfounded? The base standpoint is no religion. Give proof, and we'll consider it. but why repeat an obvious mistake?
Some information for the next time you hear someone say that they think you don't understand the Bible has changed.Why would people be saying that, exactly?
@FishPreferred Just compare it to the bottom of page 460.
Give proof, and we'll consider it.
That is the problem. Especially christianity but really most religions ask that you don't put the writings and the described events to the "logic" test. Only that you have faith in god. Which in my humble opinion, is kind of contradictory as, according to christianity, rational thinking is the gift of god to mankind. What separates man from animals.
Despite the above,I believe there is a god. Not a god who created us and loves us all, but a being far superior to us which in a way watches over us.
Of course that deity may not be part of any religion. But it is near-universally accepted that the human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions, which have troubled so many great philosophers.
But it is near-universally accepted that the human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions, which have troubled so many great philosophers.
It is not a matter of having the mental capacities to 'process' an answer or not. You could claim there being any kind of deity (a superior being as you think, or an invisible pink unicorn, for example), as long as we have no definite proof against its existence we cannot objectively discard anything, except by saying it is highly unlikely. Besides, everyone does have their own answers to those 'great questions', whether they be based on belief or reason.
@HahiHa Obviously. What I meant was that we cannot find and prove the answer in our current minds, because we are not made for it. It's like the famous quote from "The hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy" : What is the meaning of life? 42. I happen to believe it to be something like that. It is a bit of a cycle: We have no definite proof about the existence of a god but we cannot find proof because of our limited abilities as human beings.
As for the god thing, it is just a personal belief which is (obviously) not based on any proof. While I remain a rationalist and a man of science, I cannot turn down any religion exactly because of that belief.
We cannot treat religion as just a good story, because it runs deeper than that. It is for many people a way of life.
Of course, the reason it became way of life for those people is a subject of a great many conversations.
Of course that deity may not be part of any religion. But it is near-universally accepted that the human mind in its curent state cannot process those great questions, which have troubled so many great philosophers.
Actually this is an obvious mistake based on ancient philosophers. We totally CAN find the answer by ourself,and we did it. In your case you suffer from daddy-complex for lack of self-confidence, so you made up an imaginary friend who "always watches and protects you".
And your argument is a typical relgious argument countered a gazillion times, namely "you can not disprove it therefor I believe it", what is of course a false standpoint,as the scientific base is always "I don't count with it unless reason arise for to do so".
Anyway, according to your description you are a theist. Theists (deist?) are people who generally believe in a god/ess which has no definite properties aside "it started the universe" or other vague definition.
Religion is of course not "just a story". It is ancient superstition based on insufficient evidence to keep together and control people while promising there are answers to their questions. But instead of answering the questions, religion comes up with "just a story"(, and kills everyone who does no accepts it).
This is the understanding of religion by antropologist (and sociologists, and evolutionary biologists, and science in general).
With posts like that how has this thread not been locked for trolling.
That is the problem. Especially christianity but really most religions ask that you don't put the writings and the described events to the "logic" test. Only that you have faith in god.
That is a load of crap. If whoever you're dealing with who is religious actually told you that then go find a different church. 9 times out of 10 priests of any religion will genuinely encourage people to think about their faith. The people who actually deal with the rest of the world generally aren't trying to create and army of mindless followers, they're trying to help people by spreading the faith that gives them strength. It's the authority figures in religions that want power, the popes and emperors through history that used religion as a means of controlling people. Real religious people, genuine believers, will give support and encouragement to those who are questioning their faith and recommend they look at what others believe to explore what their faith truly means.
And your argument is a typical relgious argument countered a gazillion times, namely "you can not disprove it therefor I believe it", what is of course a false standpoint,as the scientific base is always "I don't count with it unless reason arise for to do so".
Life and the existence of the universe are usually the reasons people consider the existence of a creator. For all the scientific theories, nothing has been proven yet. In fact, every attempt to confirm that abiogenesis is even possible has failed to produce more than a few amino acids (a small fraction of the hundreds that would have to spontaneously form and then combine to create even the simplest cell) making it even harder to accept the current "scientific" explanation for the origin of life. And the theories on how the big bang occurred are often so laughably vague and self-contradictory that you'd think they were meant to be a parody of all the ways atheists mock religion.
It is ancient superstition based on insufficient evidence to keep together and control people while promising there are answers to their questions. But instead of answering the questions, religion comes up with "just a story"(, and kills everyone who does no accepts it).
This is the understanding of religion by antropologist (and sociologists, and evolutionary biologists, and science in general).
The only people who see religion that way are fools on the internet like you. Arm-chair experts that abandoned religion, usually because of a bad experience with a specific individual or church, and spend their days online calling everyone with any kind of faith an ignorant stupid child clinging to imaginary friends. People who post praises to the FSM and laugh having forgotten what the joke ever really was. People who cling to evolution as absolute fact when, in my experience, their understanding of evolutionary theory is limited to quotes from Dawkins and Krauss with a few memorable phrases from Darwin thrown in. Everyone else, especially scientists, recognizes religion for what it is, a collection of people with similar beliefs.
You don't know the first thing about religion or about real science. And you certainly don't belong anywhere near a discussion on either matter. BTW, Charles Darwin became a deist after writing The Origin of Species and giving up on his dream of becoming a Christian priest. Einstein was a theist who fled to the U.S. in order to escape the Nazis' persecution of Jews. Every notable name in the history of science prior to Hawking, at the very least, acknowledged the existence of a higher power. To try to claim that science only sees religion as an excuse to subjugate other people is to ignore the history of science, religion, and humanity in general.
You must be logged in to post a reply!