Hmm - I've often thought it must be harder for those who continue to believe in something. Well, especially the Bible.
If something Witnesses teach comes up in a conversation, and they say "Well, it was that way in biblical times as well, just see here.", I can say "Sorry, but because of [this, that and the other], I no longer believe the Bible to be the word of God, so even if you can show me how it used to be, that holds no weight with me." Whereas if I still believed in the Bible as the word of God, I would have to come up with a different interpretation of those scriptures to prove them wrong, but most likely we would have to agree to disagree, because there are thousands of different interpretations for almost any scripture.
in what terms can a person who "believes nothing" also assert that he rejects the truth claims of Jehovah's Witnesses? What language can he possibly use to express such rejection that does not necessarily imply other positive beliefs?
This is a rather common thought from those who do believe in something, because in their universe, God does exist, and everyone else is deluding themselves. But - in my universe, God does (most likely) not exist. So - does that mean I positively believe something opposite to what the JWs or other religious people believe? Not viewed from 'my universe'. From my view, I have only removed JW claims as truth for a reason, and that's it. Of course, from the perspective of someone who believes in either Jehovah or another God, this is not possible, because God is still there, so therefore, from their perspective, I positively chose to believe the opposite of JWs (or other religious people). JWs are wrong because of [this, that and the other], and I have replaced it with - - - - nothing. Well, nothing when it comes to a belief in God, anyway. It does follow that I now "believe" science has found certain answers to life's mysteries, but I can actually visualize people turned atheist who wouldn't actually even need to do that. They could use logic as a way of rejecting God, and have no real opinion on science. By the way, I feel these arguments present a very black or white way at looking at things. The world is full of beautiful gray in-between.
Take the blood issue for example. Should someone refuse blood that can save their life? If I assert that one should not refuse blood does this not imply a range of positive beliefs such as: the medical profession gives the best medical advice; the Bible does not forbid blood transfusion; preserving life is more important than following purity rules; this life is all there is; heartache should be avoided if at all possible. Which of those sentiments you refer to in your rejection of Witness policy will depend on whether you believe in God and the Bible or affirm secular values, but in order to make sense when stating that life-saving blood transfusion should not be refused you need implicitly to draw upon at least some such positive statements of belief. If you do not believe in God, the Bible, the value of preserving human life and preventing sorrow, then what basis is there left for asserting that refusing life-saving blood would be wrong?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you believe that atheists or agnostics place no value on preventing sorrow, preserving life etc.? The statements I've highlighted in yellow above that - - I can agree with all of those and still be an atheist. Of course, the part about the Bible not forbidding transfusions would perhaps be a little out of place, but in a conversation with a JW, I could still use that argument, just as much as someone who does believe in the Bible. I don't see the conflict here. If this life is all there is, it just becomes even more valuable, wouldn't you agree? If there were only one diamond in the world, wouldn't it be literally priceless because of it's rarity and 'irreplaceability'?
The same is true of other controversial aspects of Witness belief:
if you reject Witness chronology you affirm in some sense traditional historical/scientific methods of chronology (or else some other pre-critical "Bible" chronology).
Yes, one then most likely accepts the dating presented by secular scientists over theologians or religious people who may be experts but who have an emotional investment in their findings. Most likely (since this is a topic about those who believe nothing), one also rejects biblical history except for the few things that have been confirmed through archeology. But what is the point here? I don't get it. There are clear cut reasons why one chooses to accepts those things, it's not a belief one just jumps onto as a villy-nilly substitute. At least it shouldn't be. It should come from research.
If you reject Witness anti-patriotic sentiment you affirm patriotism whether that be jingoistic or humanitarian in focus.
I can't really say at this point. I do reject JWs anti-patriotic sentiment, but at the same time I'm a little wishy-washy with my patriotism (not an American btw, so don't go there, wherever 'there' is). In other words, this is a little area of 'gray' with me.
If you reject Witness disdain for charity and world-affirming projects for betterment then you embrace the notion than humans can and should try to improve our lot and not wait for God to act.
Yes, most likely. The point?
If you reject the Witness reading of the Bible then you necessarily accept some other reading: and that holds true whether that other reading happens to be a coherent systematic theology or simply a tendency to believe that the Bible offers no clear message at all, but many contextually specific meanings.
Yes - I still don't see how this is a problem. Oh - maybe I'm coming to it:
Personally I find it hard to say the Witnesses are wrong about anything. If I say they are wrong about what the Bible means, then don't I have to demonstrate what it does mean?
Umm - yes, but only if you still believe the Bible, but this thread is about those who believe nothing. Those who believe nothing, however, would probably have to say why that is in such a debate. But it most likely wouldn't be a rebuttal of a specific theological point in a specific scripture.
Otherwise how do I know they are wrong. I am in no position to do that. Are they wrong not to involve themselves as citizens in the running of the states in which they live? If I say they are wrong to take that position on what ground do I say political involvement is the best course?I like the idea of becoming an involved citizen, but I have no way of showing that this is the "correct" attitude to adopt, merely that it is what I find agreeable.
Yes - although the argument against them could seem a little weak. The argument would be some kind of version of the teacher in a classroom saying "Get that bubblegum out of your mouth! What if all of you were chewing gum? That'd be a right mess!" Of course, the response would be "But not all of us do, just a few". In the case of Witnesses, I guess they could say they're just a small group, but they are part of the community - things the politicians decide do influence them, and things they decide to do or not do (like voting) will affect them (and others) if they like it or not. If everyone behaved like them, we'd have anarchy. Of course, they'd say we'd have theocracy, but I don't see their kingdom halls being run directly by God.
And how can I tell a Witness that he should take blood? Personally I would prefer to preserve my own life if such a life-threatening situation arose. But then I have lots of preferences that don't seem to transfer easily to others. Why should this be different? How can I confidently assert that preserving life is the most important thing. I "feel" that it is, but on what objective basis can I show that to be the case without invoking yet more questionable assumptions and beliefs?
If there's one thing we can be 100% certain of (unless we're en route to the loony bin), is that we're alive now. We know we have this life. That's really all we know. It would be in our best interest to preserve that precious life no matter if we believe it to be a gift from God or not. It would be in the best interest to those around us as well. About taking blood, it's not so much that one should take blood anymore, it's more about accepting the best, most efficient medical help one can get. Sometimes that will include taking a transfusion, other times it may not because of micro invasive surgery methods they now have.
I don't think it's out of the realm of an atheist or agnostic to discuss Bible doctrine either, actually. Just like I can post comments about some fictional novel I have read, and discuss it with others on an internet forum and agree or disagree about it's meanings, I should be able to do the same with the Bible. I don't see why that's impossible. I could use the same arguments about blood, from the Bible, that is used by believers here when confronting a JW. I don't see the conflict in doing so.
