There's very little difference between what Sunni and Shia Muslims believe. But that difference is enough for them to kill each other. In droves.
Things JW's and Atheists have in common
by juandefiero 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Anders Andersen
I have to agree with both Cofty/CodedLogic and SBF.
As far as religions go, I have always seen JW as being evidence-driven, as opposed to those all-vague-and-miraculous-spiritual religions. I took pride in knowing on what my belief was founded, while others just believe because they believe, or because it feels right.
I always knew JW can even back their religion up with scientific evidence (eg proving the flood, disproving evolution etc.)
In that respect, JW beliefs are very materialistic, like many atheist viewpoints.
A discussion between JW and atheist might be fact based (although the JW will not know any relevant facts, nor accept them if they contradict his beliefs).
A discussion between a non-JW theist and an atheist is basically a discussion between two-dimensional Flatlanders and 3D Earthlings: they are each having a discussion in completely different realms. The Christian theist will speak about revelation, personal conversion, knowing Jesus personally etc.etc. in a way a JW will never do.
On the other hand, JW have no idea what science is about (I know that now), and they believe in supernatural Magic SkyDaddy whose existence is completely unproven, and all kind of non-materialistic bullsh#t.
Anyway, I'm glad JW are somewhat (twisted) evidence driven: once I researched the contradicting evidence I was out. In other religions I would still be in based on having Jesus in my heart or something like that.
-
prologos
This evidence- based conviction of both Atheists and wt-believers is a great idea that emerged from this thread. Are atheists not convinced that the Universe made itself, that life is self-started? and they look for, manufacture (not faking) evidence to bolster their conviction, --through scientific research. WT believers bolster their convictions by manufactured data too. Looking for bible passages to prove their doctrines, adjusting their beliefs to fit new circumstances, Too many anointed, invent the great crowd. Generation of 1914 expired, invent the overlap. If God,s existence, his approval through money is waning,-- dip into real estate sales. dip into kid's ice cream at circus money. -
JW_Rogue
This evidence- based conviction of both Atheists and wt-believers is a great idea that emerged from this thread. Are atheists not convinced that the Universe made itself, that life is self-started? and they look for, manufacture (not faking) evidence to bolster their conviction, --through scientific research. WT believers bolster their convictions bymanufactured data too. Looking for bible passages to prove their doctrines, adjusting their beliefs to fit new circumstances, Too many anointed, invent the great crowd. Generation of 1914 expired, invent the overlap. If God,s existence, his approval through money is waning,-- dip into real estate sales. dip into kid's ice cream at circus money.
It is true that JWs try to present themselves as more logical and less emotional than other religions (or at least they used to when I was growing up). I believe that is why they are so enamored with a Paradise Earth unlike heaven which is spiritual and mysterious they can present this hope as something everyone can understand. If you look closely though this belief in what is basically a physical heaven is ridiculous. Natural, biological, and physical laws would need to be altered. A belief in heaven where none of those laws take place is more reasonable than a belief in a physical Paradise.
I think most Atheist simply don't see any hard evidence that a God exist so chose not to believe in one. It is not that they are looking for evidence to disprove God. No matter how much knowledge is gained about life's origins it will not disprove the concept of a God. Atheists would argue that lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe.
-
Coded Logic
Their belief that physical resurrection involves the reassembly of atoms in a particular configuration to recreate the person or soul.
-SBF
I've never heard this one. Though I have heard the complete opposite - that we will get new bodies. Can you cite a source please?
Their rejection of an omnipresent God.
This is not true. JWs believe God sees everything and can interact anywhere at anytime. I think some religions might take it one step further - in that God is "in" everything - but lacking that position is not a rejection of omnipresence.
Their rejection of modern day miracles and divine revelation.
Firstly, I'm not sure why it matters if they believe this is happening "modern day" or not. Believing in only ancient miracles and divine revelation doesn't make them materialists. But either way, JWs do believe that God actively intervenes in their lives. They regularly pray to have God to change their circumstances. They believe their preaching work is guided by the angels. And they believe that every single quick build is a miracle too (I'm not exaggerating here).
Not to mention that JWs are some of the most superstitious people I have ever met. They believe that watching scary movies can let demons into their house and that coming to THIS WEBSITE will let Satan into their minds.
I agree with you that JWs are very different from mainline Christianity. And that the meetings are very cold, corporate, and stunt emotional and intellectual growth. But that doesn't mean they are materialists.
I have the feeling you think that's what "materialism" is. Something heartless and computer like. But that's not the case at all. I would encourage you to check out my thread on this topic: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/27300001/spirituality-science
P.S. I'm a materialist as far as I believe there is an objective reality and I believe there are truths to be learned about that reality. But I don't claim "material is all there is" - only that material is all we're currently justified in believing.
-
David_Jay
Anders Anderson,
I have to strongly disagree. Jehovah's Witnesses are not actually “evidence-driven” as an atheist generally is in their convictions.
“Evidence” is data or information that confirms, verifies, or validates a view, hypothesis, or proposition. It can even be used to affirm some “beliefs,” depending what these “beliefs” consist of, of course.
But the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses and the conclusions they arrive at have nothing to do with logistical methods or even just plain reasoning that atheists or even many religious people may engage in.
Jehovah's Witnesses base their conclusions on a technique known in hermeneutics as “proof texting.” It isn't “evidence-driven.” Instead it is “citation-” or “source-driven.” This form of theology claims that the Bible is the ultimate source of revelation from God, greater and more substantial than the theophanies witnessed by the patriarchs, the experience of the apostolic college in living with Jesus of Nazareth, and any other person, event or tradition that shaped the Bible. It is no different from Joseph Smith's “discovering” a book and basing a religion on a text history knew nothing about.
“Proof texting” works like this:
Person A, a Jewish man, has a religious practice (wearing kippah or a yarmulke in prayer) that has been handed down from his Jewish culture, shaped by that culture's theology and historical experiences, but not mentioned in Scripture whatsoever.
Person B, a Jehovah's Witness, claims that the practice is false because it is not mentioned in Scripture. Person B also finds texts in the Bible that clearly state that 'men are not to have their heads covered' during prayer.
Person B concludes that their view is true because only their has textual support from the Scriptures.
“Evidence-driven” thinking works like this:
Judaism and Christianity came before and produced the Scriptures the Jehovah's Witnesses use. These Scriptures cannot logically be the “basis” for these religions because the texts were composed by those who already had the convictions they wrote about. The book did not come first. The writers came first. The writers did not get their religion after they wrote down words. Their religious beliefs inspired their writings.
The separate canons of these religions were shaped by religious tradition and authority, not by any written directive in any of the books of Scripture. There are no texts which spell out which books should or should not be included, and no texts that command a library or collection should exist in the first place. Even in Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth neither wrote nor commanded the writing of any texts, nor did Jesus make the study of Scripture a requisite for discipleship or salvation. The Hebrew Scriptures were canonized sometimes between the 1st and 7th century C.E., well after the Second Temple had fallen, and the New Testament was canonized by two bishops in the 4th century C.E., well after the death of Christ and his apostles.
By the time both these religions had their texts, they were well established. Generations of believers had come and gone, including the founders, all without ever having a Bible. Obviously the Bible cannot be the ultimate and final authority from God, otherwise the founder of these religions would not have truth since they were without the Bible. The Bible is the product of religion, not its basis.
Being that religious authority and tradition outside the Bible shaped the Bible itself, the same religious authority and tradition can rightly play a part in the theology of those who follow it. If that religious authority and tradition was good enough to set the canons of Scripture, it is equally authoritative to allow for a Jewish man to pray wearing kippah.
Besides, the Christian text regarding not using a “headcovering” when praying does not apply to Jews since the text was written to Gentile believers and before the practice of wearing kippah was adopted by Judaism.
Atheism, on the other hand, is not necessarily adopted because a person weighs their views with religion. My two best friends growing up were atheists because their parents were. They did not arrive to their convictions because they once were part of a religion and then decided to “employ logic.” They were born into a world where religion is not a concern or important option.
Atheists who do reject religion on the basis of logic do so because they consider evidence. “Proof texting” is not evidence. Just because the Bible says something does not mean it is true, neither does appealing to authority mean one has a fact.
To be honest, “proof texting” is merely an “appeal to authority” or “expert testimony,” and logic dictates that a claim is not true merely because it comes from an authority or expert. Evidence tests claims, not stops once it hears or reads them.
-
Anders Andersen
@prologos
Are atheists not convinced that the Universe made itself, that life is self-started?
Both theists and atheists must accept that life is self-started. Either because spiritual life self-started with God's existence, or because carbon-based life self-started.
So everyone in this universe must be convinced life self-started, in whatever form.
and they look for, manufacture (not faking) evidence to bolster their conviction, --through scientific research.
No, scientists are looking for explanations that fit the evidence already found.
And then they look for any and all evidence they can find to either confirm or dismiss the proposed explanation.
Scientists being both theists and atheists.
Do you honestly belief that all theist and Christian scientists really want to prove God doesn't exist? Scientists couldn't care less about that, because it's not a subject they investigate.
Or are you claiming all scientists are atheist? In that case you are very mistaken.
WT believers bolster their convictions bymanufactured data too.
Please please please tell me you were drunk when writing this.
I really hope you don't seriously think the scientific processes that brought you all technological advancements and all of human knowledge are the same processes that make the dishonest liars we call Watchtower make up their beliefs out of thin air...
If you do think that, please educate yourself on how the scientific process works.
-
Anders Andersen
@DJ,
I agree. You use a lot of words though ;-)
I described my feeling of JW being 'evidence-driven' from my former still-in-JW point of view.
I now really know that are talking rubbish regardless of what evidence they think they have, and that their evidence is just unsubstantiated claims about unsubstantiated ancient claims...
-
Mephis
Do you honestly belief that all theist and Christian scientists really want to prove God doesn't exist? Scientists couldn't care less about that, because it's not a subject they investigate.
Stephen Hawking made that point in one of his recent Reith Lectures. God is only relevant to science if someone insists that their god interferes with scientific laws. And then they have to prove it. -
prologos
Ander Anderson: No, scientists are looking for explanations that fit the evidence already found., true in part, often though, they develop a hypothesis, Theory, an equation, and then look for evidence to see the resulting predictions verified.
I did not imply, that WT theories ever produced useful results, except prolonging the shelflife of their promises, but in their "new light" methodology resembles a quasi-scientific process, similar to the the one we saw emerging from Kepler's, Newton's and the Einstein's velocity laws. This gives the illusion that wt too, like science, pursues a search for truth, understanding of an underlying great eternal truth, whereas wt's house of cards is solely based on the discredited bible and their shifting internal view of "old worthies"; "anointed" " other sheep" . and Yes, there are scientists, even Nasa personnel*, that are theists, even Deists. and it has never been demonstrated, that the Universe created itself or that life arose spontaneously. Efforts to replicate he latter have failed so far, and examining the energy level of the former even on the smallest scale took great effort and ingenuity. * read Edgar Mitchell RIP.