Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

by nicolaou 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    "but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system? ..."

    I always suspected that Christians - religious people in general - are prone to call atheism a "belief system" because that is the only frame of reference they are familiar with...

    As I stated in another thread, humanity tends to think that everything we see was "CREATED", because humanity itself had to 'create' things - tools, agriculture, animal husbandry, housing, clothing - to adapt quickly and well to an ever-changing environment...

    Long before Christianity was a gleam in a fanatic's eye, ancient peoples leant towards a belief system occasionally called "sympathetic" Magic. Also sometimes referred to as "As Above, So Below", it included the following world view:

    "As above, so below"
    This phrase comes from the beginning of The Emerald Tablet and embraces the entire system of traditional and modern magic which was inscribed upon the tablet in cryptic wording by Hermes Trismegistus. The significance of this phrase is that it is believed to hold the key to all mysteries. All systems of magic are claimed to function by this formula. "'That which is above is the same as that which is below'...Macrocosmos is the same as microcosmos. The universe is the same as God, God is the same as man, man is the same as the cell, the cell is the same as the atom, the atom is the same as...and so on, ad infinitum."
    This message theorizes that man is the counterpart of God on earth; as God is man's counterpart in heaven. Therefore, it is a statement of an ancient belief that man's actions on earth parallel the actions of God in heaven.

    That is from the following website: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/below_above.html

    It's interesting that the underlying belief system - that the earth reflects heavenly principles, structure and arrangement - is strikingly similar to the bible's viewpoint that all things were 'created', because, in the limited experience of the primitive, nomadic Israelite sheepherders, human artifacts had to be 'created'...

    "Miracles" ARE a form of 'magic', just as ANYTHING that is not clearly understood [earth's rotation, weather systems, reproduction, electrical phenomena...] would be considered 'magic' - or 'miracles' - to primitive cultures...

    As we learn how things work, the veil of mystery is pulled away...

    Zid

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Nic

    There are lots of things I 100% know for sure and there are lots of other things I have doubt about.
    You do seem to have an issue with people "knowing" things DD - is there a point you're driving at?

    It's an issue other atheist are talking about.

    Here is a quote from bohm on another thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198183/3/Atheist-believe-there-is-no-God-Yes-we-do-strongly

    "science does not operate with faith, proofs or 100% certainty; nor do the vast majority of atheists. They operate with degrees of belief"

    This question isn't to belittle anyone. It's just that the issue is not as clear cut, as you seemed to indicate or as simple as it seems on the surface.

    I was hoping you could tell us what YOU mean by "knowing".

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    I get the point that Bohm is making. When JWN was JWD we were permitted signatures, mine was a Voltaire quote; "Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is an absurd one". I like doubt. Doubt is the engine that drives discovery and increases knowledge.

    That being said, there are things that we should all be 100% certain about. Mathematical truths like 2+2=4 or astronomical truths like the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun - not the other way around. Yes, some things can be known with certainty, they can be tested repeatedly and the same results will always ensue.

    To answer your question DD, that is what I mean by 'knowing'. Basic, simple truths that can be verified and confirmed by anyone, time and time again. So, for example, if I read a story about a man who walked on water I know that it cannot be literally true. It may have merit as a piece of literature, it may be inspiring, it may even have a point but I know that it did not actually happen.

    Nic'

  • Deputy Dog
  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Yes, I've read it and if I have anything to add I will do so in that thread. I have to say DD, I answered your questions to me fully and directly, why can't you do the same? Don't you think it's a bit rude to reply to me by just pasting a link to a topic you yourself haven't even bothered engaging in?

    Any chance you might actually address my last post?

    Thanks

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Nic

    ...I have to say DD, I answered your questions to me fully and directly, why can't you do the same?Don't you think it's a bit rude to reply to me by just pasting a link to a topic you yourself haven't even bothered engaging in?
    Any chance you might actually address my last post?

    Was there a question in your last post?

    I'm sorry you feel this was rude. Please forgive me. The wife has not been well, so I've had a lot on my mind.

    I'm not sure I have much to say that hasn't been said already. My point was like theists, atheist/agnostics don't all agree on everything.

    I'm not sure how combining the atheist's bias (that there is no God) with agnostic uncertainty gives you "credibility"

  • binadub
    binadub

    Hello nicolau:

    I had asked you what you consider credibility that atheism has that religion does not have. This was a question about your explicit statement that atheism has credibility but religion does not.

    You wrote:

    My atheism is a simple absence of belief but (sigh) I'm sure you take atheism to mean a belief in god's non-existence. Atheism really needs no support, it isn't positing anything. Do I need to provide 'support' for my absence of belief in pixies, goblins or faked moon landings? No. It's the idiots who assert those outrageous claims who need to proved 'support' for their position.

    Hmmm, I've been diverted.

    Yes, that seems obvious from the fact that you didn't answer the question about your initial claim as to what constitutes "credibility" in your view for atheism. Your reply confuses the issue further. How can non-belief have creditility one way or the other?
    I have no argument as to the atheist definition of "atheism." What seems more apparent is that you don't seem to understand the term "credibillity."

    Binadub, you consider yourself "a somewhat studied Christian", would you say you are a 'true christian'? If so, would you accept that there are 'false christians'? How does anyone make that distinction anyway?

    There can only be true Christians. A "false Christian" would not be a Christian.
    Wouldn't that be a little like saying one is a "true atheist" or a "false atheist"? How would you define those?
    "False Christian" as a term would seem to be an oxymoron.

    And you still did not explain your claim that atheism has credibility. How does atheism--in your view--have credibility.
    (I don't need a definition of "atheism." )

    ~Bin

  • bohm
    bohm

    DD: Thanks for plugging my topics, the last one died a silent and IMHO premature death!

    My point with those topics is that science has a pretty clear-cut answer as to what constitute plausible reasoning, and one of the lessons we get out is that through natural observations, one should never conclude absolute certainty about any natural phenomena. I primarely made the topic because i want to end the silly notion that atheism imply 100% certainty, when infact a scientific atheist would be quite the opposite, at least on natural phenomena.

    You obviously want me to take issues with Nicolaou, but in fact we differ very little in oppinion. Nicolaou makes two statements and express 100% certainty about them:

    Mathematical truths like 2+2=4 or astronomical truths like the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun - not the other way around

    I would first argue they are different kinds of truth, though i wont really back it up unless you find it highly controversial. That 2+2 = 4 seem to follow from any reasonable system of mathematics, and it must be taken as self-evident; i would say our notion of formalized plausible reasoning break down under the asumption 2+2 = 117.

    The second statement is about a natural phenomena, and yes, i believe it is wrong in principle, but thats principle with a capital P and totally irrelevant to the debate.

    That the earth goes around the sun rest on the assumption newtonian mechanics is a good approximation for the laws of nature and the earth is smaller than the sun, and while newtonian mechanics has a couple of centuries of emperical confirmation going for it, each of the litteral millions of carefully crafted experiment has only RAISED our degree of belief closer to 1 but we wont ever get there.

    But 100% certainty on that subject is a damn good approximation - i would hate to try to give a better one!

    Its also a completely trivial approximation to do, since we all agree it is that way. Ofcourse, if you go into a debate with a geocentriest (and trust me, they do exist and make videos on youtube!), it would be a bad idea to go in with the position it is a 100% truth, because a geocentrist with a brain (well, they DONT exist on youtube) could point out the inherit unscientific part of that assumption.

    The scientific way to start the argument with the geocentrist is to say: "Yah, well, so lets say we got the earth and we got the sun. In the absence of any knowledge of the laws of the universe, lets agree there is a 50/50 percent chance one goes around the other, and then lets bring in the evidence and see which way they tilt the scales. You go first"

    And then poke fun of the geocentrist as he droll all over himself.

    Which bring us to God.

    Personally i dont want to argue against the existence of something that behave in some sence like a God; its such a vague phenomena that i dont want to get into that discussion. So lets just say that there is 50% chance that some God-like thing is floating around out there.

    Where atheists in my oppinion should begin the argument is whenever some label is smacked onto that God, be that loving, caring, omnipotent, etc. - its a much more fun discussion :-D.

    Ps.

    I know, the earth and the sun goes around their center of mass, but who cares, its late in my tz.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    bohm

    You obviously want me to take issues with Nicolaou, but in fact we differ very little in oppinion.

    I do?

    You both use my world view (faith) to understand the universe.

  • Essan
    Essan

    DD said: "I'm not sure how combining the atheist's bias (that there is no God) with agnostic uncertainty gives you "credibility"

    And that, for me, is the most accurate and pertinent line in this thread. The two don't mix. They are contradictory, and so this version of "atheism" is meaningless, IMO.

    How can a meaningful label embrace two groups with totally different views?

    1."I absolutely believe God does not exist" AND, 2 "Well I don't know for sure, but theism is stupid".

    Obviously, It can't meaningfully do so. (Note, Nic, how you knew that the posters were going to understand atheism to mean an outright denial of the possibility of God's existence and how you had to explain this wasn't your position before you even started? If atheism actually was an appropriate label for your position then you wouldn't have to do this. You could say atheist and that would be enough. But it isn't. Maybe you need a more appropriate label?)

    If you don't know, you're agnostic. If you claim you do know, you're wrong, and you're either a theist or an atheist. If you say you don't know for sure but you act as if you do, and selectively oppose theism, you're not an "atheist", you're confused and your position is self-contradictory; you're an agnostic who has given in to bias because you enjoy bashing theists or theism. Either that, or you're a fraud who actually does believe God doesn't exist, but wants to hide that belief and professes to "not know for sure" in order to escape being likened to a Theistic believer. But if one really didn't believe they knew for sure, why would they associate with a label and a group commonly known for denying outright the possibility of God's existence? Hmm.

    Anyway, I'm not getting back into this debate. Atheists are as crazy as Theists, and defend their belief with as much venom and unreasonableness, IMO. So, I'll take my leave. :)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit