Biblical Theology or Atheism the only two choices?

by Hyghlandyr 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hyghlandyr

  I am amazed at the numbers of perrsons who believe that if one is not a christian (or jew or muslim) then one must be an atheist. If we do not believe in Creation by the biblical creator, then we must believe in evolution. If we find the jewish god repugnant, then we must cease believing in god. If the proofs of theism fail, which they miserably do, then we must live without religion. If we oppose the morals of control, then we are immoral.

  There are a number of religions that do not include belief in a god or a creator. Buddhists generally do not believe in god. Irish religion has no creator. Now I know that there will be those that argue with this point and claim that the creation myth of the Irish was lost. They do so without evidence and through revisionist history. Certain tribes in asia did not believe in gods. Naturalists, secular humanists and others do not believe in dieties or creators. Pagans often do not believe in the christian or jewish gods (gods because while claimed to be the same deity they are clearly different when one reads the sacred books of both peoples, not to mention the original language terms like elohim verifying the polytheistic tendencies of hebrews) and yet they have their own deities.

  The options of belief, morals, deities, are plentiful and abounding everywhere. We are not locked into a choice of believing in Jesus or atheism. Nor are we forced to deny deities or accept them fully.

  For example, I have many labels. I am atheist. Not agnostic, as some suggest. I do not believe in the existence of deities. I however do not deny that deities might exist. Some beleive this is agnosticism. Even several dictionary definitions contribute to this belief, stating that agnostic is:

  broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

  Atheists however, who define themselves, define atheism more aptly as:

  The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though we do not recognize any "middle ground," we do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).

  I am atheist thus. Nor am I atheist agnostic though. I say this, because while I state that deities might exist, I do not believe they exist. I believe so and so holds a certain opinion based on their actions. I allow that they might not hold that opinion, but I still believe that they do. So too with deities. I do not believe in their existence. Since I am not attempting to prove that they do not, I allow that they might. I do not however allow the claims that are made about deities, as in the case of christianity's god. The proofs used fail horribly.

  I do not believe in creation. I do believe in certain claims of evolution. I see no difference in the two. In order for something to exist, something must always have existed. To put it another way, in order for existence to be, existence must always have been. Some will state god as a first cause, others the big bang and energy and so forth. I believe in no first cause. There are first causES... such as I had a first cause when I came to be. The laptop I am typing on had a first cause. The present universe had a first cause, perhaps the big bang. But before the big bang there was something. Perhaps a collapse from a previous universe which then was from its own big bang. Perhaps not.

  My belief is not to stretch back to the infinitum. Only to recognise that there is existence, which simply is. In being, then, it has always been. Merely the form has changed from one time to another. Some will find this incomprehensible, as do I, and thus they need to create a deity to be a first cause. Well the existence of that deity is no less incomprehensible than existence itself. The lack of a first cause in general is no more difficult for the mind to conceive than the lack of a first cause for a specific deity, almighty, or a first cause for a collection of deities.

  Now that we have gotten that out of the way, let me complicate matters a bit further. It is clear I do not believe in deities. Yet I worship them. Huh? Yes you heard correct. I worship Bridhe, Isis, Set, Osiris, Cu Chulain, Medh, Sol, to name a few. I especially worship Angelina Jolie (may she be praised). I worship myself. I worship songs and singers, movies and actors, directors and cinemtographers. I worship speech writers and makers.

  The best definition for me is most likely pagan. Here it is from the dictionary merriam websters:

  Main Entry: pa·gan
  Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT
  1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
  2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
  3 : NEO-PAGAN
  - pagan adjective
  - pa·gan·ish / -g&-nish / adjective

  I am a follower of polytheism, though I am an atheist. My deities are real, real persons, and real things, the sun, the air, and symbols and myths and fables. I delight in sensual pleasure and material goods. A definition it no longer carries is one who does not believe in gods.

  Main Entry: 2 heathen
  Function: noun
  Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen
  1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
  2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person
  - hea·then·dom / -d&m / noun
  - hea·then·ism / -[th]&-"ni-z&m / noun
  - hea·then·ize / -[th]&-"nIz / transitive verb

  Main Entry: neo-pa·gan
  Pronunciation: -'pA-g&n
  Function: noun
  : a person who practices a contemporary form of paganism (as Wicca)
  - neo-pagan adjective
  - neo-pa·gan·ism / -'pA-g&-"ni-z&m / noun

  There are some more specific defintions and a history. I use this term mostly in reference to myself because I encompass in my world view so many differing views. I practice rituals. I deny deities. I worship deities. I believe in the physical and thus am closer to a naturalist. Yet I believe in the power of myth. I deny Jesus historicity. Yet I realize he is powerful and exists and existed. The power of these fables is not in their actual historicity. It is rather in their ability to effect human beings. Superman is real, he is far more real than I am, though he never existed. Ritual, words, myth, fable, beliefs, prayers, chants, morals, and the plethora of philosophies and actions that make up religion are not constrained to christianity. Nor are they forbidden to atheists. Life is sacred. People are holy. And that without or with christianity.

  Goddess Bless (Thyself)
• 

  English Patient

  Hi.

  Some of the pitfalls for false arguementation include :

  Misrepresentation of opposing arguments, as by the use of a 'straw man' in the place of the real point at issue.
  
  Use of 'circular reasoning', in which an unproved premise is used at the starting point of an argument that proceeds to build on the premise rather than on established fact.
  
  False analogy, where similarities exist but not the kind needed to prove the conclusions argued for.
  
  Creation of a 'false dilemma', which makes it appear that there are only two choices, the one being argued for and another that is usually undesirable - when in fact there may be several choices, several alternatives.
  
  The dragging of a 'red herring' over the trail of an argument, that is, bringing in some point that is not relevant to the discussion and which only serves to divert the readers attentions from the weaknesses in the argument.
  
  Ad hominem ( meaning, 'to the man' ) argument, which consists of an attack on the person argued against, instead of on his argument
  
  Provincialism, that is, appealing to the tendency to identify closely with the thinking, belief - even the prejudices, bias or ignorance - of a particular group, and to see things largely from the standpoint of the in group verses the out group.
  
  Misuse of deductive reasoning, either taking a broad principle and drawing unwarranted or unproved conclusions from it or, vice versa, using certain incidental facts and building on these to establish a broad principle that does not necessarily follow, hence, a hasty 'generalization'

  I always found that annoying too. But it is a step up from the Witnesses. They believe you are either in God's hands or Satan's. Simple as.

  Just braindead reasoning really.
• 

  DanTheMan

  Interesting post Highlandyr. I have never heard the term "noncognitivist" but that probably describes what I lean towards these days - talking about God or gods is a lot of hooey and a waste of mental energy.

  That said, I am a seeker by nature and the noncogntivism that I've adapted is unsatisfying. One of my coworkers brought in a little Buddha to sit on top of his computer, he rubs its belly now and again. I did it too, and I found it to be strangely comforting. But I don't ever want to call myself a Buddhist or anything, though I think I could learn something from the religion. Too many labels, that's the problem.

  What do you make of death and suffering? I haven't found a satisfactory reason for either of these things to exist.
• 

  Hyghlandyr

  English Patient -

  Aye. It isnt just christians who hold this view either. Many non-believers think that christianity is moral and they are not. COnsider the numbers of folks that convert to christianity after a life of non-belief. While I believe they have not analysed their faith or their previous atheism when they were atheists. The society still holds that christian morals are the only true morals and everything else is immoral. False guilt builds up over time then when an evangelist tells them what theyve already been told, they think it is something new. Something true. A life awakening. And conversion to something more moral follows. (less moral)

  DanTheMan -

  Lets start with the simple. Death is cessation of life. Suffering? You would have to elaborate what you are asking in that case. Do I believe in an afterlife? No. Could one exist? Well I dont beleive it does. There could be other dimensions, such is outside of my experience. I do not debate such things as heaven and hell and other dimensions or the existence energy beings from the planet Moototakwa. I havent found a satisfactory reason as to why I like hot dogs. I just know I do. I dont need a reason as to why we dont exist forever. I just believe we do not.

  As to buddhism, you could easily be a buddhist and not believe in many spiritual things. Buddhism is very naturalistic in its approach. In addition, you could reassess definitions of words. Consider words like spiritual, holy, sacred, prayer. Do these have to be applied only if a deity exists?

  I will give you for instance my use of the word religous. I use it to me that I have an outlook that all of life is sacred. All is holy, special, beautiful. I am contemplative. My religion, and that of many others, including and especially buddhists, is reaching inward not outward. Though it connects and accepts and seeks the connections with others. The circle of life pagans call it. We are all a part of this life and universe. We can be helpful and blessings to each other through our words actions and thoughts.

  Rituals like rubbing the buddha belly have a connection that goes back millions of years, each ritual though perhaps being newer than that. Each individual has their own needs and thus rituals. I suppose my point is, that religion and spirituality does not require an almighty. Nor does the lack of one make it less valid.

  Your statement about talking about gods is a lot of hooey and a waste of energy makes sense. Assuming such are fantasies. Since they exist in the common psyche though, they have an impact on our lives. God save me from your followers. And that is why they become important. Had gods never been invented, then the discussion would not occur. We are not turnin back the clock though. So we have to gop with what we have been given, until the majority of people change.

  However, talking about spirituality and talking about god or gods does not have to mean talking about fables. You are a deity. The sun has been worshipped since prehistory. It is a deity. The act of calling something a deity, makes it a deity. And that is where redefinitions come in. Deification. I have deified myself. And you. And many others. So have many others. So in talking about gods, consider a change. Consider yourself first a god. Turn inward. Worship yourself. Accept yourself. Give up guilt and sin and other such things. Meditate not on what others tell you, but on yourself. If along the way you find useful rituals, like rubbing a buddha or saying a mantra, then use them as well.

  The answers will continue to be wrong if the questions are wrong.
• 

  SixofNine

  If along the way you find useful rituals, like rubbing a buddha or saying a mantra, then use them as well.

  Dear Dr. Hyland. What should I do if on the one hand, I find that rubbing my "buddha and saying a mantra" is useful, but on the other hand (quite literally), I develope hairy palms from the ritual?
• 

  Hyghlandyr

  Sixofnine

  Funny that rubbing your buddha made your hand hairy, while rubbing my buddha, made my buddha bald.
• 

  Narkissos

  Six:

  What should I do if on the one hand, I find that rubbing my "buddha and saying a mantra" is useful, but on the other hand (quite literally), I develope hairy palms from the ritual?

  Change hands.

  Hyghlandyr:

  I finally realized that I don't really believe in the existence of God or gods. So I came out as an atheist. That is, I gave up the unending theological game of trying to give a new definition of "God". I accept that the words "God" or "god" are not an unknown "x" or "y": they do have a common definition from religious tradition and language, I accept this definition but recognize that I don't believe anymore in any "reality" fitting this definition.

  Yet, I feel free to use the word "God" or "gods" in a metaphorical or literary (poetical) sense. Thus I can still enjoy the theology of monotheism and the mythology of polytheism. God and the gods to me are fictional characters, just like the fairies or Superman -- although they are different kinds of characters. When I read a story of the OT I have to "believe" in Yhwh, just as I have to "believe" in elves and trolls when I read the Lord of rings. This is part of the contract of writing and reading. This is a provisional belief I step in and out when I open or close the book.

  I would not call myself or other people or things gods, just because it is not part of my tradition history. That is, in the stories I read to this day "God" or the "gods" are always distinguished from real characters (even as a sort of "double"). This, I think, is even true of the historico-mythical Jesus of Christian tradition. Yet I find metaphorical value in such a vision: there is always more to persons or things than what they factually are. Call it "divinity", "sacredness" or "holiness"... I don't mind the adjective as long as I'm allowed to use it metaphorically.

  I agree that we need (and, in Western modernity, miss) rituals. In the ritual we can express something important beyond reality, whether we rationalize it as belief or poetry.

  Just my 2 ? cents...
• 

  DanTheMan

  Suffering? You would have to elaborate what you are asking in that case.

  Today I was outside doing some work on my house. While I was out there, my neighbor noticed that a bird had gotten its neck stuck between the slats of the wooden fence that separates our yards. So they used a broom to push it up so that it could fly away, but it was bleeding, so it may or may not make it. But if my neighbor hadn't noticed it (it was just sitting there, not flapping, not squawking, we thought it was dead at first) it likely would've died. Or how about the untold number of birds that fly into plate glass windows every year and bust their beak up. They don't die right away, but they probably end up starving to death because they can't eat with a broken beak. These examples are the teeniest tip of the iceberg of suffering that goes on in the world everyday.

  I hate the fact that every day, every hour, every second, there is untold suffering in the world, in the animal and human kingdoms (though this is maybe an area that I need to redefine my terms since we humans are separate from the animals in our minds only). It is one of those things that continually gnaws at me, and makes me wonder if life is worth living or serves any purpose at all.

  Sin and guilt are other areas that make life unpleasant. I feel constantly that I'm not living up to some perfect ideal that I've created in my mind, that I'm supposed to be doing something that I'm not. I think a lot of this has come from the outside - my upbringing, my JW experience, even Hollywood gives us perfect people whose example we never can match. Are these concepts so part and parcel of the collective western mind that it's impossible to escape them, living in America?
• 

  Hyghlandyr

  Nark,

  To state that you mean something metaphorically and symbolically is to me as well as mythogically. Since myth comes from mythos which means sacred story. The concept of the myth from ancient times, is not a literal belief in the events told. It was as well a proverb, or a teaching method. It is understanding that there is a difference between the truth, and facts. Truth is contained in wisdom. Wisdom can be taught in fiction. God is simply a metaphorical term anyhow. It was appropriated by christians and its meaning narrowed. All of the ancient terms for god, including the hebrew terms, el, baal, dia, theos, dios, and most of the others, were expansive terms, not restricted to meaning only a singular almighty deity. The sun, people, judges, husbands, kings, and others were all addressed as these terms. So for me it is not a redefining in a new fashioned way, but in an old fashioned manner. As far as the common definition, well the use of god in the manner I am speaking has an ancient tradition, and pagans for instance, did not disappear, they just went underground. Thus the explosion of neo-paganism in our time.

  I agree fully with your statements btw. Especially in regards to believing in fictional characters based on the contract of writing and reading. I think you have explained what i have been trying to say for many years more precisely than I have ever been able to do. It explains for instance why I believe in yahweh fully when singing a christian song, or why I believe in jehovah when I read the bible. The memories that I have for instance of people who have died, make those people real. The fantasies and dreams I have had I treasure as much the memories of physical events I have lived. It assists me in relating to others as well. Provisional Beliefs...I might make use of that statement if you do not object.

  I certainly do not object to you using any term metaphorically, especially considering that I use so many terms myself in such a fashion. While it is true that some have been restricted in their terms, there are others that have not. Consider the term namaste which is of hindi origin, sanskrit, meaning essentially the divine in me bows to the divine in you. Also since we are dealing often with a christian tradition, and since it is my belief that the christian belief differs little from others, and in fact most are identical to christianity, it is the names and places that change but the essence is the same, we can look to christian myths for an example, a simple one, of the divinity in humans. We are made in elohim's image.

  Ritual, belief, reality, poetry all meld.

  Dantheman

  I understand about suffering, what I dont know is whether you were asking me about why it occurs? Or what the solution is? As far as why those birds suffer? Because they hit the glass or they got caught in the fence. Sometimes we suffer because people make decisions to abuse things they know about others, like the fact that torture causes pain, and so governments use it to enforce their will on people. I dont need an ultimate answer to that such as satan or something metaphysical. Being a naturalist, natural answers suffice for me.

  Perfection, is being whole, complete. That means understanding what you are and being that and accepting that. I am a man. I am a human. I am a mammal. I am an animal. I am a life form. I am an earthling. I am not a squirrell, to act like a squirrel would be to act in imperfection. Unless I shapeshift of course, in which case I would be a squirrel. Perfection means making your own ideal and reaching it, not some others. Are the models on tv perfect? Yes. So are women who are not on tv. How often do you see buck tooth people displayed on tv? When they are how often are they depicted as normal people? Usually they are, if intelligent, nerds in the extreme. If not nerds, they are depicted as stupid. While women who seek to improve their looks with breast augmentation are decried, we are all encouraged, for our self esteem, to improve our looks with dental surgery.

  Ok the point of all of that? I forever have considered myself perfect. At first I joked about it. I liked how I looked even though I knew others did not. I enjoyed seeing my reflection. I enjoyed and still do, spending time with myself. I like talking with myself, through writing for instance. If you say something enough you will begin to believe in it. I am perfect, I am a deity. This despite the fact that media would indicate I am not perfect. I am not trying to match them. So I think you can escape, or embrace, up to you:)
• 

  Hyghlandyr

  testing since it says I am logged in as guest