No one believes in nothing. I believe in logic. When someone's belief's defy logic in every point, and when a powerful organizations has an economic interest in the perpetuation of those illogical beliefs, then it's rather easy to see reasons to know those beliefs are false.
If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?
by slimboyfat 70 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hillary_step
Slim,
But how does someone who genuinely believes nothing
I am puzzled by what you mean by a person who believes 'nothing'.
As the subject of your thread was all about JW's and their Biblical beliefs, my using the term 'non-believer' quite obviously described those who do not believe WTS teachings or that the Bible is the word of God.
I see no dichotomy is a non-believer first showing that WTS teachings are incongrous with many Biblical tenets AND then showing that the Bible itself cannot be relied on.
HS
-
Narkissos
slim,
I may be wrong (or may I?) but I think you are building up a strawman after the image you have constructed of others (of me in particular) from previous conversations.
For instance, in a recent thread, when I admitted I was close to believing nothing (immediately adding that I also believed everything in a different, not systematic, way), you might have wondered what I exactly meant by believing.
So let me expand: you and I went through the experience of dogmatic belief. Belief in some encompassing system of truth, including relative truths of many sorts (knowledge about the past and future, the "nature" of beings, and the supernatural), and excluding any different views (whether encompassing or relative).
I don't believe anymore in any such encompassing truth, and for that very reason I believe (note: only believe)those holding such belief (JWs and many others) are wrong indeed. In general I gladly let them be and believe, but I may also say I believe they are wrong -- especially when I see people entangled with a belief system that doesn't seem to suit them.
As far as relative truths are concerned, I certainly believe (rightly or wrongly) many of them, through the common experiential or academic network of "evidence" for instance. So I can also point out where I believe JWs are punctually wrong in history or exegesis, without needing any encompassing belief system analogous to theirs.
In short, I believe (!) you are constructing a formal yet false dilemma by confusing different ways and objects of believing. And I also tend to believe you are, at least in part, doing so consciously. Why is another question, which only you can answer ultimately.
-
joelbear69
I believe in facts proven by using the scientific method. I believe in people who have provided me with a history of being trustworthy. I believe in ideas that are presented along with a rational logical argument.
-
slimboyfat
Narkissos,
As far as relative truths are concerned, I certainly believe (rightly or wrongly) many of them, through the common experiential or academic network of "evidence" for instance. So I can also point out where I believe JWs are punctually wrong in history or exegesis, without needing any encompassing belief system analogous to theirs.
You claim you do not need an "encompassing belief system" to disagree with JW's on particulars, and yet you also state that you can identify where you believe JW's are wrong on the basis of experience and academic literature on pertinent topics. However, is not the belief that you can by these means so identify where Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong without implicating a larger narrative in itself also an "encompassing beliefsystem"? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that facts only make sense within their narrative, whereas you believe that valid inferences can be drawn in isolation without any such supporting narrative. However, what you seem to fail to realise is that your belief that it is possible to make sense of things without an underlying narrative to structure your beliefs is, ironically, in itself the very "encompassing belief system" through which you have chosen to make sense of the world. You differ from Jehovah's Witnesses in that you have a different "encompassing belief system". You diverge from Jehovah's Witnesses in many respects, but where you do not differ from them is in this supposed sense in which they are said to have an "encompassing belief system" and you do not. This really is the false dichotomy here. It is a linguistic game that seeks to prioritise your approach to constructing your worldview over that of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Your approach to establishing your beliefs relies upon assumptions and discourses and narratives just as Jehovah's Witnesses rely on theirs. It is not that you are different because you can see things clearly without cloud of "belief" distorting the picture. Rather your particular convictions and beliefs are so strong and present that it seems you do not realise at all that they colour everything you view. In this sense your delusion is in fact stronger than that of Jehovah's Witnesses, because you have examined what the structure of belief entails from within/without the perspective of a dogmatic sect and concluded that in your current state of 'believing almost in nothing' you have somehow managed to escape that bind of altogether. At least Jehovah's Witnesses realise they believe something!
I don't believe anymore in any such encompassing truth, and for that very reason I believe (note: only believe ) those holding such belief (JWs and many others) are wrong indeed. In general I gladly let them be and believe, but I may also say I believe they are wrong -- especially when I see people entangled with a belief system that doesn't seem to suit them .
I am glad you say "seem", but apart from that I have gave concerns about all this. Things "seem" so many different things to me at different times I no longer have confidence that anything is really anything, other than that it is convenient at certain times for me to view them in a certain way. To outright state (and you hesitate) that a certain course of life does not "suit" another implies an ideal against which the current course can be measured. To start with I will point out that this must be problematic for someone who claims not to have an encompassing world view. I personally find it a disconcerting perspective.
Sometimes other Witnesses look happy to me in their current life. Then sometimes I think if I were in their shoes I would be happier doing things differently. Sometimes I am even convinced that if I were in their shoes I would really want to release myself of the shackles of Witness belief and practise also. But I may be wrong. I may always be wrong. How can I ever tell? And how are we to define what "suits" a person anyway and what is "better"? How I think he should live? How he would think he should live if only he knew what I know about the Witnesses? How society in general would have him live? How God thinks he should live? How a jury of peers given access to all pertinent facts would judge to be the best way for him to live? In the absence of a divine arbiter who is determine what is authentic? I suggest all such statements about what suits are in the end power games. It suits me in my current state to believe that Witnesses would be better off giving up their beliefs and way of life because that is the course to which I myself aspire. And thus because I clearly have an interest in seeing such a course as better "suiting" a fellow Witness also I should be all the more suspicious of my belief that such would be an authentic or suitable expression of themselves in any objective sense. There is no sense in which any claim that a course of action "suits" a person is objective. It is all power play with words serving different interests.
-
Narkissos
Lol. You are perfectly able to return every single sentence of your argument against itself as soon as you feel like it, so I won't bother doing it in your stead...
You are trying to derive from a terribly un-nuanced and (oxymoron intended) absolute relativism just what it can't offer: consistency. And funnily enough, you don't even wonder whether the notion of "inconsistency to relativism" makes any kind of sense.
Next time you see a child about to cross a busy street, won't you move a finger or say a thing, for how could you know what is better?
Even though you may not rationalise what you will be doing through any "encompassing belief system," you just will.
In both "grace" and "cruelty" there is something "gratuitous," or "absurd". Acknowledging that is about all I mean.
-
slimboyfat
Sorry to disappoint master Narcissus, I never claimed a golden mouth.
And I also tend to believe you are, at least in part, doing so consciously. Why is another question, which only you can answer ultimately.
This is a rhetorical flourish I will not attempt to meet, ultimately.
-
Terry
I'm afraid your premise is about as short-sighted as the famous PASCHAL'S WAGER.
Simply embracing a concept (such as belief in God) doesn't guarantee you have any part of it usefully and practically correct.
For example, you can believe all you want in "God".
But, what does that really mean? Not much. You end up having to go through the buffet line of God attributes and orthodoxies and pick and choose what appeals to you and reject the rest.
Why?
All choices imply rejections automatically.
Leaving you where? You can easily be wrong. In fact, as far as your odds of choosing correctly are concerned--almost certainly wrong.
THE PROBLEM WITH BELIEVING IN SOMETHING is that it rules out what you DON'T believe. What you DON'T believe could be the very thing which is necessary.
This implies a standard.
You can't just state with simplicity: I BELIEVE the bible!
Whose version? What doctrines?
It isn't an either/or choice. Thousands of denominations wag their standards in the face of the rest.
Religion is self-refuting. The proper goal for man is choosing a practical life directed by intelligently practical choice.
A practical life consists of actions directed toward achieveable goals demonstrably attainable.
Almost all of religious goals are rather elusively attached to a dimension invisible and immeasurable!
RELIGION is not PRACTICAL in the sense you can ever show the rewards are really "there" and that faithful people have reached them.
I deeply resent any philosophy which denigrates the person practicing it to the point that person must be viewed as worthless.
Christianity begins with the disgusting premise that you and I are without merit! God's goodies will be bestowed UNMERITED!
Yet, no basis is ever given by scripture or believer to warrant such an undeserved gift.
Stuff and nonsense. If God has no/needs no basis for bestowing rewards, then, He is equally without basis in condemning man in the first place.
We can only achieve good things in our life when we are reality based in our thinking & our goals and our long-term perspectives. Otherwise, we trade achievably good things NOW for purportedly better things in an undefined "later".
Swamp real estate is not a good investment!
Nothing worth believing in can render man as UNWORTHY.
Man is the measure of all things because man's life is what imbues all things with value in the first place.
-
hillary_step
Slim,
The logic of your theory is flawed, as has been pointed out to you. I think you are attempting to bend conclusions to suit the theory that you have posited and that is why you have tangled yourself in your own words.
1) A religious 'narrative' as you describe it can be measured against the object of its foundation.
2) It does not require that a person hold to any religious belief in order for them to prove a flawed theology.
I am not sure what has been going on between yourself and Narkissos but I understand completely and actually confirm with my own view his expression which suggests that he believes 'everything and nothing' - though taking a literalist approach to this statement, as you seem to have done, is actually missing its point.
If you do not mind me observing, your posts often reflect the mind of a person who is desperately trying not to face the inevitable about the WTS and its teachings.
Cheers - HS
-
5go
Slim you are just having a hard time letting go.
You don't believe in nothing, you have just stop believing them. The proof is in the lies and inconsistencies they pass off as facts holding up a book of myths as proof they are true and not inconsistant. Despite the fact that same book is the best proof they are wrong.