Essan

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 624 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Essan

• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Yeah, it's a knotty problem LOL. There is what people mean when they use words Vs. what those words actually mean. A lot of people use words and claim labels wrongly, sometimes as an acceptable disguise for a less acceptable viewpoint.

  A typical, and related, example is 'skeptic'. Lots of people claim to be 'skeptics' who are not skeptics at all, they are 'pseudo-skeptics', active deniers, they have active disbelief and assert negative claims ("X is false"). Whereas again, a truly skeptical position is agnostic ("X is unproven").

  Commentaries: On Pseudo-Skepticism

  Likewise, there are 'pseudo-atheists' and probably 'pseudo-agnostics' too, either through ignorance or by design.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Q said:

  "I'm going to try to reword it again. (For "god" also read "gods".)

  1) Belief: I specifically believe there is no god.

  2) Non-belief: I don't absolutely believe there is a god.

  Anti-belief: Okay, I realized that non-belief and anti-belief are close to the same thing, once I tried to put it into other words! It's sort of "I don't believe in belief about god"."

  But if someone says 2 it inherently implies 3:

  3) I don't absolutely believe there isn't a God.

  Which would necessarily make them an agnostic who doesn't absolutely believe in either the existence or non-existence of god/s.

  If someone claims 2 but denies 3, they actually invalidate 2 also, they contradict themselves, because 2 inherently implies uncertainty:

  "I don't absolutely believe there is a god"

  Yet if they can't also say that they "don't absolutely believe there isn't a God" then they reveal that actually they DO absolutely believe there isn't a God, which belies their previous claim of uncertainty (2).

  Selective claimed "non-belief" is belief, otherwise non-belief would be applied consistently, unbiasedly, equally to all unproven claims both negative and positive ("there is" and "there is not").
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  "Is atheism the belief that there is no god (or are no gods)?

  Or is atheism specific non-belief that there is a god (or gods)?"

  I think it's the former. Firstly, if it were to be defined as the latter it would require that the long-standing meaning of atheist be abandoned and secondly the definition you propose excludes millions of Atheists, probably the majority, who very definitely do believe that there is no God. They would have to abandon the label, something I'm pretty sure they would not be prepared to do.

  The second definition you gave doesn't quite make sense, IMO. You can't have a "specific non-belief that there is a God or Gods", without an accompanying "non-belief" in the definite absence of God or Gods. Otherwise, the non-belief is really a belief, as exposed by the "non-belief" not being extended to the other possibility. To apply "non-belief" selectively in this way reveals bias and so reveals belief. After all, neither position can be categorically proven, therefore to lean one way or another is to make the same mistake just in a different direction.

  To put it simply, if an atheist truly embraced the concept of 'non-belief', they would be agnostic LOL.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  OK Q. Well, as far as I'm concerned the three terms mean the following.

  Theist (belief) - "God/s exist!"

  Atheist (belief) - "God/s do not exist!"

  Agnostic - (no belief) "God has not been proven either to exist or not exist. So, I withhold judgement and belief either way."

  I know some people speak of "strong" and " weak" theism and atheism but I don't really think this idea makes much sense as such stances quickly become contradictory and render their labels meaningless.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  It sounds like you are actually agnostic Q, rather than atheist.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Excuse me if I misunderstand the debate, but isn't atheism the belief that there is no God, which is the polar opposite of belief in God?

  They are both belief systems. A 'negative' belief is still a belief. The atheist asserts a belief: "There is no God", which he can't really prove, much like the Christian.

  Agnosticism, on the other hand, is withholding judgement, whereas both belief in God and atheism both make a judgement without full knowledge.

  No?
• 
  98

  Blood Fractions

  by alice.in.wonderland in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  someone is pressing me about blood fractions on an unrelated thread, so i just moved the topic to an appropriate location.. "the point for me in every thread you touch is your sickening dishonesty and nauseating apologies for the old men in brooklyn who tell you what to do.. they have told you that products made from blood don't use blood, and you are so corrupt and gullible you just accept it.".

  i accept any bible-based religion that adheres to the bible as its authority.. the purpose of this magazine, the watchtower, is to honor jehovah god, the supreme ruler of the universe.

  just as watchtowers in ancient times enabled a person to observe developments from afar, so this magazine shows us the significance of world events in the light of bible prophecies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  No Wasblind, they don't expect you to understand and they know most JW's will not. In fact, they hope you won't, because anyone who understands knows their position makes no sense.

  They don't expect you to understand, they just expect you to obey.
• 
  33

  How do you handle the wickedness going on today?

  by stillin9 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  we know in the jw realm, satan is believed to be the main cause of all the wickedness going on in our world today.

  after taking a quick look at news headlines, and seeing the crap going on around us, i personally don't find that so hard to believe.

  but i wanted to see how you guys handle the tragedies and wickedness going on around us?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Hmm. I don't think it is 'normal'. There are many, many religions and spiritualities which see this period as one of things reaching their absolute limit and then of great change. Something weird is happening, IMO. I just don't think it's leading to the 'Armageddon' of JWs or the Bible - not quite. I think it might be much broader and far less 'sectarian' than that.
• 
  164

  My sister died in a head on collision last night

  by Bumble Bee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i still can't believe it.

  she was here for the bbq, we had an awesome time, laughing, her telling stories from our childhoods.

  i gave her a hug and told her i loved her before she left.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan
• 
  13

  Recognizing Common Pitfalls of False Argumentation - By Ray Franz

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there are honest ways of arguing- and dishonest ways of arguing.

  in ray franz book " in search of christian freedom " on pg.

  437 he quotes some points from " logic and contemporary rhetoric " by howard kahane of bernard baruch college regarding invalid methods used by people who pontificate on the basis of superior wisdom or superior authority.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  If the Society stopped using those listed fallacies the magazines would be blank.

  Here's a game we could play - match the various WT subjects with the fallacies they commonly use.

  1. Straw man = Trinity (misrepresenting, then 'debunking' their misrepresentation)

  2. Circular reasoning = Secondary fulfillment of prophesy (not establishing that secondary fulfillment is Scriptural first)

  3. False analogy = Blood policy (claim that transfusing is like eating, abstain from alcohol same as abstain from blood etc.)

  4. False Dilemma = 'God's Organization', Christendom vs JW's, also circular because not proven God actually has an 'Organization' before we must choose.

  5. Red Herring = Supposed Pagan Origins of things they want to demonize.

  6. Ad Hominem = Supposed bad hearts and insincerity condemns Christendom, but good hearts, pure motive excuses JW's, often of same crimes.

  7. Provincialism = JW's vs The World, JW religion is "The Truth". JW religion defines 'truth', truth does not define JW religion.

  I'm sure others can identify more.