Posted by Skeptic [Skeptic] on April 03, 1999 at 07:33:13 {Ed9c7782HMPFKPeDxyCkQ0vvLkUBWM}:
In Reply to: ****Common Sense Argument posted by WW on April 02, 1999 at 21:09:39:
:Then your assertion that you actually exist is in doubt? I exist, but outside of some records and very little published info, no one will be able to prove my existence in 100 years.
Well, at present, for the price of airfare, taxi fare and hotel costs, I can come visit you and prove I exist.
The fact you are reading this proves that someone claiming to be Skeptic exists. Since humans are the only ones known to be able to write at the level I do, it is a safe assumption that I am human.
However, if I claimed to be God would you believe me? Your God should be capable of writing in my style and He can certainly control the Internet to pull such a stunt off.
I think any claim that I am God or that I created the entire Universe would be just an assertion, not a fact. More than simply my claim to be God is needed.
Similarily if I claimed to be an alien from another planet. I don't think you would believe me.
:Also using your line of
reasoning, most of the famous figures of the past were fantasies of some writer's imagination!
You need to reexamine this extreme version of skeptisism you have adopted. It is patently asinine.
Ancient writings claim Socrates existed. Ancient Hindu writings claim the God Vishnu existed. Do you believe Vishnu existed? Do you believe Socrates existed?
Using your logic, you have to believe both existed or neither existed.
We know people existed. We have artifacts and records that make normal claims about such people. Let's face it: somebody made the pyramids.
Records about God have not proven to be reliable. We have no proof, other than mere assertions, that Vishnu made the earth. We have no proof, other than mere assertions, that Jehovah made the earth.
:Were you so disppointed by the WTS being a false religion that you can no longer see the truth in ANY religion?
My disappointment while I was in the JW faith led me to evaluate how I reach conclusions. I had assumed that God existed and that the Bible is inspired. Never have I tested it against the claims of skeptics; nor did I ever look for objective data to support such claims. Now, I find objective data is very useful in determining the truth of a matter.
For example, the Catholic Church once claimed that the earth was flat. Most Catholics at that time believed the Catholic Church was the one True church. To disagree with the Church was to disagree with God.
Someone (I can't remember the name) saw the earth's shadow on the moon. The shadow was round. This person said, "The Church says the earth is flat. I see a round shadow on the moon. I would rather believe a shadow than the Church." He knew the earth was round because a shadow provided objective data.
The earth's shadow does not care if you are an atheist, Catholic or JW. It is still round. Finding why it is round leads us to a truth about the shape of the earth. What we believe is unimportant to the actual shape of the earth.
Most people can see the value of this when evaluating a religion they disagree with. Many have trouble seeing the value of it when applying it to their own religious beliefs.
Testing religious claims against objective data has lead me to the conclusion that most religious claims are incorrect, or unprovable.
:That would be a good subject to study: Why so many ex-JDubs either join up with
the first orthodox or fundie church that strikes their fancy or become atheist/agnostic?
WW
It would be very interesting. IMHO, I think ex-JWs join the fundies because many of the beliefs and mindset are similar.
As for the
atheist/agnostic, IMHO, the explaination is two fold:
1) The WTS trains us in how to find flaws in other religions; hence some will never believe in another faith because they can easily find the flaws. They will never be JWs again
because they can see the flaws in the WTS.
2) After putting the years of devotion into the JW faith, we want to have solid proof of the "truth" of another set of beliefs before accepting them. I am in that category. I am a skeptic simply because it has proven to be the most reliable method of reasoning I have used to date. If I find a more reliable one, I will change to it.
When one goes looking for such proof, one finds that most religious claims have very little proof to support them. Why should someone believe an unsubstantiated claim?
Every individual reacts differently. We have different backgrounds and emotional makeup. I have found that those with really good science backgrounds tend to become atheist or agnostic. That is because the standards of proof for science are high, and are very reliable. That is because they understand how to evaluate proofs and reasoning to check how solid it is.
SS