The God I Don't Believe In

[Paul of Tarsus]

It's common for atheists to describe God as a celestial tribal leader and killer or as a sky ghost who telepathically communicates his revelations and his marching orders to those he has privileged to receive them. He spies on everything we do looking for anything that we do that breaks his many rules. He hurts us if we violate those rules. He also inspires people to write books in languages that almost nobody will eventually speak or understand. He can't seem to clarify every message he has supposedly authored in those books, and some of those books either go missing or get thrown out as what even his followers cannot believe.

Atheists do not and apparently cannot believe in such a God, and neither do I. While I see some compelling reasons to believe in a God, I don't believe in the God I have described above. I think that's a God that people have made up for their own purposes to feel special about themselves and to see others as not so special. A God like that is only good to control and take advantage of others. He's useless as a source of truth, so why claim that any truth can come from him?

[Paul of Tarsus]

This just seems to be another one of your numerous threads aimed at attacking atheism.

Then defend atheism.

What's to defend? Atheism is not a choice. If you are unable to believe in the existence of gods, you are an atheist. End of story.

Yes, I know you're definition of atheism. There's no need to keep repeating it.

Anyway, you asked: "What's to defend?" Why, atheism of course. You just got done complaining that atheism, however you might define it, is being attacked. If atheism is being attacked, then a possible defense of atheism is a logical response to that attack.

[JehovahsWitness]

What I'm asking is how does Jehovah unambiguously communicate his truth...?

Emphasis MINE

Why does He have to?

There is nothing to impose truth being "unambiguously communicated". If He did choose to do so, biblically He would do so through holy spirit. It is presumpteous however to assume that is his will to do so and more so to assume one would automatically be a recipient of such a revelation.

... how do you know it's the truth?

If you have read my first post you would know not to ask that question of any human. Only Almighty God has absolute knowledge of truth, all the rest of us can do is believe, be convinced, be confident /sure that something is true and act accordingly.



JW

[Paul of Tarsus]

What I'm asking is how does Jehovah unambiguously communicate his truth...?

Emphasis MINE

Why does He have to?

There is nothing to impose truth being "unambiguously communicated". If He did choose to do so, biblically He would do so through holy spirit. It is presumpteous however to assume that is his will to do so and more so to assume one would automatically be a recipient of such a revelation.

You're answering a question I didn't ask. I'm not asking why Jehovah needs to unambiguously communicate truth but how he communicates that truth. I assume his means of communicating truth has been assigning human prophets and men to write the Bible. How does Jehovah make the meanings of those messages clear to all people, and how does he assure us that those truths are from him?

... how do you know it's the truth?

If you have read my first post you would know not to ask that question of any human. Only Almighty God has absolute knowledge of truth, all the rest of us can do is believe, be convinced, be confident /sure that something is true and act accordingly.

In that case you don't know if what God presumably has said is the truth.

Personally, I doubt that God reveals his truth to people. It appears to me that all such claims of divine revelation are what people could have made up. If people can make up revelations, then I see no reason to make the additional assumption that God has made up some of them. Why make two assumptions when one assumption explains the evidence?

[brunumb]

If atheism is being attacked, then a possible defense of atheism is a logical response to that attack.

When you are boxing shadows it is not logical to expect the shadow to box back.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. how he communicates that truth...?

Was there a part of through holy spirit you were having problem understanding.

If He did choose to do so, biblically He would do so through holy spirit.

Holy spirit is basically His active force, his power... logically an omnipotent God would have no shortage of power.

... How does Jehovah make the meanings of those messages clear to all people, and how does he assure us that those truths are from him?

He doesn't, the book itself says truth is not destined for all people. It is a gift to the chosen few. Logically if an omnipotent being wanted everyone to know the truth EVERYONE would know the truth.

Maybe you are not aware if the words you are using but when you say " all people " people that read your post will take it to mean ... all people ie everyone.



JW

[Paul of Tarsus]

... How does Jehovah make the meanings of those messages clear to all people, and how does he assure us that those truths are from him?

He doesn't, the book itself says truth is not destined for all people. It is a gift to the chosen few. Logically if an omnipotent being wanted everyone to know the truth they would know the truth.

Is it possible that the chosen few are a group you don't belong to? I don't believe that God plays favorites with people. It's more likely that people want to feel special and believe that they are members of that chosen few by choosing themselves. Human hubris is like that. I don't know of any people who think that other people rather than they are God's chosen few.

So it looks like Jehovah, if he exists, cannot assure people that it is he who is the source of truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it possible that the chosen few are a group you don't belong to?

Of course its possible.

I don't believe that God plays favorites with people.

Yes. But of course you don't KNOW that, do you....so thats just so much white noise to me.

But, thanks for sharing.

So it looks like Jehovah, if he exists, cannot assure people that it is he who is the source of truth.

Well, he's assured me and that's good enough FOR me.

Definition of ASSURE

1: to make sure or certain : CONVINCE
glancing back to assure himself no one was following

2: to inform positively

3: to make certain the coming or attainment of

[Paul of Tarsus]

So it looks like Jehovah, if he exists, cannot assure people that it is he who is the source of truth.

Well, he's assured me and that's good enough FOR me.

The problem with these kinds of claims is that they are not objectively verifiable. Claims of knowledge coming from divine revelation can easily be bogus assuming that the persons making those claims divulge no more knowledge than what they could otherwise know or make up. If a supposed revelation could have a human source, then I see no reason to make the additional assumption that the revelation originated with God. It seems reasonable to me that if God went to all the trouble of revealing some knowledge to a person, then he'd tell them something that they could not know otherwise. God would understand that divulging mundane or unverifiable information to a person would make that person's prophecies look merely human, and therefore people might be skeptical of the prophecy.

[JehovahsWitness]

So it looks like Jehovah, if he exists, cannot assure people that it is he who is the source of truth.

Well, he's assured me and that's good enough FOR me.

The problem with these kinds of claims is that they are not objectively verifiable.

Not a problem for me; I do not exist for other people to objectively verify my feelings. You shared your beliefs, I shared mine, I can live with that without seeing the difference as problematic. I am convinced of the biblical testimony, it is not problematic in my opinion that others are not.


JW

[Paul of Tarsus]

Not a problem for me; I do not exist for other people to objectively verify my feelings. You shared your beliefs, I shared mine, I can live with that without seeing the difference as problematic. I am convinced of the biblical testimony, it is not problematic in my opinion that others are not.

Just be sure to be upfront and responsible with the people you tell that Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion. Make sure they understand that your faith is personal, subjective, and cannot be objectively verified. If you don't, then they may be misled. And I do have a problem with people being misled.