I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne 284 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  I trust that you are not saying the above negatively and would you also agree that the so called holy books also reveal quite a lot about God's absence and the spaces were where people felt free to imagine and speculate either quietly or often quite loudly. The prophets did this the most for example.

  edit: btw I have become so fearful of being labelled a theist that I keep thinking I ought to pin a caption saying I am not a theist to my avatar to prevent the thread being de-ralied and heavy disgust being poured out on me
• 

  Lieu

  I understand completely what EdenOne is saying. Odd how so many others do not.

  The problems with understanding is that modern people attest the ancient to today. But not just to today, to "Western" thought. Um, no. That's the mistake JWs make.

  Ancients worshiped the planets Jupiter & Venus. A lack of extreme air pollution allowed for easy viewing of the planets. (No telescope required) In pre-Colonial America, some Tribes worshiped a Great Spirit, others the Earth itself. In Asia it could be believed that cows were hosts to 300 or more souls/gods, or man himself was God. So...
• 

  cofty

  Calling Jupiter "god" does not make it so.

  Jupiter exists. It is a planet.

  Jupiter as a personal entity who had powers to respond to human prayers does not exist.

  Odd how Eden doesn't get that.
• 

  Ruby456

  Jupiter was never a personal entity in antiquity as far as I know (and the planet was named after him) - cofty you are using a western lens as so well described by Lieu. The attribute most associated with Jupiter was power and the ability to exploit those less powerful. Another of his attributes was that he had favourites whom he both exploited and endowed with gifts - an eerily familiar and modern attribute full of significance.
• 

  cofty

  The attribute most associated with Jupiter was power and the ability to exploit those less powerful. Another of his attributes was that he had favourites whom he both exploited and endowed with gifts

  Which turned out to be superstitious bullshit.

  As is every other god ever conceived.
• 

  Ruby456

  cofty well Caesar and Napoleon who often associated themselves with Jupiter were certainly not superstitious bullshit - in fact they conquered more than most and indeed brought in potentially everlasting changes for more people than you could possibly conceive of.

  dismissing something does not make it go away except to make it absent

  edit: cofty I hope you realise you and I could have something really interesting discussions if only you didn't expect me to agree with everything you say
• 

  cofty

  well Caesar and Napoleon who often associated themselves with Jupiter were certainly not superstitious bullshit

  Which has nothing to do with the topic.
• 

  Ruby456

  lol - thought control? thread control?

  In actual fact I understand edenOne a lot better than you think. He was the one who raised the issue of Augustus Caesar after all. who are you to say I am off topic?
• 

  M*A*S*H

  If you are using the word "absent" in the traditional sense of a person being absent, we would need to assume the person exists to be absent (which is bad in this case). If you are using the word "absent" in the sense there is no evidence for the person or god in our universe to prove their existence then I would say that is a pretty good estimation of the definition of the word "atheist".
• 

  EdenOne

  MASH, I'm using the term "absent" in the rational sense, i.e., "not present". I'm not making any claims regarding the existence or not of deities. I'm just claiming that, upon empirical observation, God wasn't found to be present. And this is all we can say with certainty about God.

  Now, a reasonable claim is: "But, what deity, or what God, are we talking about?"

  This is where it gets more complex.

  Let's assume that the God I have in mind is:

  a) Immaterial

  b) Intelligent

  c) One, unique and undividable entity

  d) Possesses powers beyond my comprehension

  e) Possesses knowledge and wisdom beyond my comprehension

  f) Has a personality with qualities that humans can relate to

  g) Is the origin of the universe and life itself

  h) Interacts with his creation

  h) Wants our worship

  i) Wants us to know his ways and his will

  j) Is willing to befriend or adopt humans based on their faith and/or good deeds.

  k) He is good, loving and compassionate.

  Let's also assume that I conceptualize this deity because of the religious upbringing I had, the western culture I grew up in, and the era in history I lived on.

  Now, if I look around, I concede that there is no hard, empirical evidence that such deity exists. There is testimonial evidence in ancient "holy books" and people who claim they are in touch with such deity. There is a sensation that the existence of such deity would be highly desirable and that may be the foundation of faith for some people. Some people look at the universe and life and beauty and conclude that it could only come from a supernatural power. However, I'm not able to replicate those experiences and I cannot observe nor experience such deity in any meaningful way. There are empirical and logical explanations for the universe, life and beauty that don't require the existence of deities. Therefore, I can rightfully be skeptical of the existence of such deity. But I cannot entirely rule out that it may exist, either, because neither I, nor anyone has scanned the entire universe and all physical dimensions to learn empirically that such deity doesn't exist. So, what can I say about this deity?

  All I can say is that such deity isn't present, that it failed to be present where it was expected to be found, in a word, such deity is ABSENT.

  It's not the same as agnosticism, whose claim is: "God, if it exists, is unknowable". My belief is that if God exists, it should be possible for humans to apprehend his existence using the resources common to all humans (i.e. not resorting to special, magical powers that only certain people claim to have).

  It's not the same as hard atheism who claims positively "Deities don't exist", because I can't make such claim with absolute certainty. Actually, the only form of atheism that is true to its name is hard atheism.

  Absentheism is perhaps a new expression that I am now coining, but I posit that it's the truest expression of skepticism regarding the existence of deities, because it makes a positive claim ("God is absent") rather than a negative claim ("There's no evidence that supports the existence of deities"), and therefore, the burden of proof falls mainly on the negative claim rather than on the positive claim. I CAN prove that God is absent, but I CAN'T prove that God doesn't exist. Can you see the difference?

  Eden