by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cheeze if you ever have the "stomach" for it, I encourage you to attempt to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norma Geisler. He talks very objectively throughout as to why it is more logical to believe in the Christian God than any other form of God or lack of faith. I think it's fair since I am reading "Age of Reason" with a hopefully open mind.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
Great list, SBC.
My requirement for the theists' God to prove himself is much simpler: Show up. Don't send emmisaries or ambassadors to tell me you're there. Come to my house YOURSELF. You're the ALMIGHTY for crying out loud. I busted my ass for you for decades; you should know where I live. Come by and say hello IN PERSON. That is, IF you actually ARE a person.
<crickets>
That god is just a metaphor.
I wasn't being biased. I was showing that there are basically 3 world views that are popular.
C'mon, Dan, you're killin me here. At least acknowledge you're biased. Nobody is free from it, not me, not you, not Gandhi. Some just use critical thinking to suppress bias while others use bias to suppress critical thinking.
Look at your question at the end below. You don't see how the analogy is slanted in your favor due to some clever sleight of hand? How could anyone NOT pick #1 when you omit the fact that the painter in that analogy must've always existed?
Theists belive in a painter and a painting. The painter painted the painting
Pantheists believe that the painter IS the painting
and Atheists believe that the painting did not have a painter and that it was always there.
Which one sound most reasonable?
Also, how is it harder to believe in a painter (who was always there) that painted a painting than a painting (that was always there) that has NO painter? It sounds like LOGIC would point to the first conclusion. Yes?
Not for me. Here's my logic:
If I just had to pick one or the other based on the notion that something has always existed and, therefore, didn't need a creator, I would guess that which is less complex. But that's just my logic.
Regardless, I'm not an atheist, Dan. I simply don't have enough information to feel like I "know" right now. I guess I'm more of a pragmatic agnostic. I want to believe in life after death and a being or beings who secretly care for our welfare but I don't have evidence to support that. Not that it doesn't exist, I'm just reserving judgment until I learn more. It's an attempt to suppress my own bias.
EDIT: MadSw, I was afraid I'd miss some low-hanging fruit. Good call - that one takes the cake!
I acknowledged that I should have said that theists believe in an eternal painter. I was coming at the subject in describing the painting itself or creation itself. If I'm talking about the painting: the painting had a painter. And YES the painter was always there.
No matter what side of the coin you are on, SOMETHING or SOMEONE has to be eternal. Either matter in the universe (in the form of a singularity) or an eternal person. The eternal aspect is a given.
Someday science is going to figure out what chi is, how it works, and how it can be used/manipulated to give us near-perfect health.
Then, some time later, we'll discover exactly what the Tao is and why everything in the universe flows in it as it flows in us.
Then, the theists will have all of those scientists executed for heresy.
And I'm not saying you ARE an atheist, Cheezy.
Listen, your comment:
Which is more complex? The universe or the Christian God who supposedly created it? Christian God.
Sort of proves my point. The universe is less complex. It must be! The information systems seen in the universe must be less complex than that which caused it. Information MUST come from greater information. The common factor present in all living organisms, from bacteria to man, is the information contained in all their cells. It has never been demonstrated that information processes can randomly be generated.
Because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life. All efforts to explain life processes in terms of physics and chemistry only will always be unsuccessful. This is the fundamental problem confronting present-day biology, which is based on evolution.
I am jumping in late, so hope I don't repeat what has already been discussed. Also I am not saying you are a fundamentalist, rather just answering the question.
I think there are various aspects to being a fundamentalist,
I consider point 2 more dangerous, where a fundamentalist is someone that thinks their view of some Holy Book is the only correct viewpoint. This is what leads to extremism, as a person can end up justifying any behaviour once they believe they alone are worshipping God acceptably. For example, war, terrorism, shunning, refusing medical treatment.
A global flood has NOT been conclusively proven to have not happened.
Actually a global flood has been conclusively proven to not have happened, from many, many different angles. However, believing in a global flood does not make you a fundamentalist, even if your belief is wrong. You could change your mind tomorrow about the flood and still be a fundamentalist. It is more in regards to the the extent of the Bible that is taken literally and how you apply it. JWs are fundamentalists because they apply much prophecy just to themselves, and create extensive rules based on selected portions of the Bible. Other fundie groups do the same, but end up different, because they choose different prophecies and create different rules. This is possible because the Bible is so extensive and the teachings vary greatly over time, so that each group can differ in which parts to accept and which to reject, which to say are figurative and which are literal.
believing only you have the truth.
And I don't believe that. I believe that only JESUS has the truth. But if that makes you a fundamentalist then you have to include all Christians. But I know that I'm wrong in probably 90% of what I think right now. But I'm trying.
Here is what the Watchtower says on the public affairs site answering:
While we have strong religious convictions, we are not fundamentalists in the sense that the term has come to be used. We do not believe that every passage in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. We do not pressure political leaders to promote a certain point of view, nor do we resort to demonstrations and violence against those who disagree with us. The Bible teaches Christians to be kind, good, mild, and reasonable—qualities that do not allow for the kind of fanaticism that is sometimes associated with fundamentalism.— James 3:17 .
--------------
So according to THAT I am not a fundamentalist either.
1. I dont' believe EVER passage in the Bible is literal
2. I don't presure political leaders
3. I don't resort to violence
