Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

tec

TEC said- Truth is truth... regardless of if you and others want to label some as a 'wisdom saying'... or some about His coming Kingdom.

Holy Hades, TEC: are you still struggling with the Law of Identity (which most people learned as children), since you seemingly feel the need to constantly confirm it?

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”: “A is A and not ~A”. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence.

Worse, you seem to think it actually somehow constitutes a valid argument, when anyone can clearly see it's patently obvious, a law of identity, which arguably only constitutes an attempt at circular logic.

So please promise me that next time you feel the urge to repeat silly meaningless phrases like, "the truth is the truth", you'll catch yourself and refrain, rather than simply repeating an utterly unnecessary statement that only fills dead air, since YES, we all KNOW that things ARE in fact what they ARE: a dog is a dog, a car is a car, a house is a house, etc. That's by way of agreement, which is accepted.

However, I asked for an example of a TRUTH offered by Jesus.

Darlin', you are not HEARING what I said, or at least you are reading "truth is truth"... and NOT reading the rest of what I wrote, and so are missing the point.

Truth is truth... regardless of what category you place it under: wisdom truth, about the Kingdom truth, about God truth, about science truth, etc. Different categories, but all truth.

Same as... a dog is a dog, regardless of the breed.

Same as... a car is a car, regardless of the make.

Do you understand my meaning a little better now?

I asked for a TRUTH, NOT a knowledge claim that must be taken on FAITH. Belief in the resurrection is actually an article of FAITH in Xianity, which is a big HINT that it's not a verifiable FACT (a truth). As Hebrews 11 describes, the idea is that Xian faith is based on the HOPE that Jesus has the power to offer salvation and admittance into Heaven.

I will actually refer to my first response to you on this. Since my response will be the same, and hopefully you will understand it better now that I have clarified my meaning above, regarding the 'truth is truth'... regardless of the category.

(Christian faith is based upon Christ, btw... who GIVES hope... of life, forgiveness, salvation.)

I suspect you're unable to discriminate between beliefs which are based on convictions (perceivable evidence), and beliefs that are based on faith (no evidence). You and I know you weren't there to witness Jesus' resurrection, and how it's dreadfully easy to write fantabulous claims in writings (there's an entire category of literature called 'fiction', where the imagination of the author is used to write stories, sometimes relying on the plot-line of the works of other prior authors).

I suspect that you are still unable to understand that faith IS based upon evidence. Faith is based upon what is heard.

The very definition that you still misunderstand uses the word, conviction, when describing faith.

As for the rest, my post was directed to Band. You and I have had those converstations before. Regarding the handwashing thing, the definition of faith, etc. The handwashing was ceremonial (at least it was only ceremonial by this time), and the priests were trying to find fault with Christ's disciples for not ceremonially washing their hands... allowing Christ to teach the truth about those who make a show about being clean on the outside... but inside prove to be unclean. (spiritually clean/unclean, Adamah... not physically, as ceremonial handwashing did nothing to clean hands of germs; just water/no soap/and more than one person using the same water)

Peace to you,

tammy
cofty

faith IS based upon evidence

Imagine a spectrum with faith at one end and evidence at the other. The more evidence there is for a proposition, the less faith is required to believe it, and vice-versa.

The greatest faith, the kind Tammy has, is right at the end of the spectrum where there is nothing but evidence-free assertions and absolute belief. Faith is at its maximum, and part of that is the ability to convince yourself that it is all rational.

Why don't people of faith just celebrate it?
Qcmbr

Spot on Cofty.

What is the point in faith and treating it as a divine virtue if it is simply a synonym for empirical knowledge? Tec needs to stop using her inner language and definitions in public and then blaming us for not understanding.

Faith is to believe despite or in the absence of evidence, it was not faith that drove biblical Thomas to check the wounds of Christ in the story. In fact faith is just a first principle of Christianity, its meant to be a motivating factor driving towards a state of knowledge , its not supposed to be the goal in and of itself except in keeping an enquiring mind. In many ways we could claim that christian faith shares characteristics with intuitive curisoity, they both give an initial framework to test and a desire to perform the test. Faith may lead someone to pray and if they believe they have received an answer then that answer and the resultant information change are not faith but the fruits of faith.

Christianity promotes the concept that faith should preceed the reward. Faith is thus required of a believer. It does not state that knowledge, evidence, hearing, tasting, feeling or experiencing are initially required but simply an acceptance, a humility and a childlike trust in the good news. This total reliance on Christ is one of the hallmarks of christianity and Tec seems to have bypassed this in her rush to prophetess status.
Band on the Run

Faith is not a synonym for empirical knowledge. Some atheists here love assumptions that are not valid. Most Christians probably don't believe in an inerrant Bible or blind faith such as Tammy's with no doubts. My favorite saying is that questions are better than answers. B/c I worship in Anglicanism, though, I must be a driveling idiot with a brain the size of a pea. Adam's brain is so much sharper. It is crazy. As crazy as absolute belief.

I never have problems with atheists. Yet here a few want to impose their views on all. I am glad you are here. It helps to balance the fundamentalist Christians. Spectrums exist. The military fervor bothers me. This seems to be personality driven. Most atheists I know don't give a damn what Christians believe - unless their basic rights are threatened. I don't understand the overwhelming need to trounce and convert people to your point of view. As these threads proliferate, ugly things are said on both sides. Soon we are not a community discussing Jehovah's Witnesses and our present experiences. I thought the recent thread on warfare stated it too strongly.

Screaming and posting oh so brilliant arguments in your own mind does not persuade anyone. It turns people who might be receptive away from your message. I've been guilty of strong statements. The wounds of the WT run deep. No one determines my views. I do. To listen blindly to an atheist who feels we are vomit is just as wrong as believing in the supposed wisdom of the GB. Anyway, we all know this instinctually. Discussion stops when civility stops.

How many people have ever changed their thought when told they are vomit? When I posted that the WT has legal merits in the Conti case that an appeals court will consider, based on knowing negligence law (not that well but I do know the basics) someone said they wanted to vomit. So I get vomit which ever way I post. Vomit is not instructive.

I don't understand the bashing. Sometimes the ignorance here and close-mindedness here scares me. In the past, I felt that way about the fundie posters. AGuest, Tammy, a few others. There is no response to I hear Christ. Christ is true. So where does that take you in relationship to other people? It must be a nice cozy feeling. It would put me directly into a psych ER. Unless they are talking symbolically. After years, I have no clue what they mean. lately, a few atheists are scaring me. Most Christians I know believe in evolution. Adam and Eve is total nonsense. This is a reminder that the world is larger than two camps. Radical atheism vs. Radical fundamentalism and blind belief.

There is a place for tradition and respecting wisdom from the past. Perhaps lawyers tend to have more conservative values. I do believe more in civility and due process than I once did. My 1960s fervor is more tempered by the reality of the world. Perhaps it is old age. I never liked "isms."
Qcmbr

Band - are we disagreeing ?
Band on the Run

I don't know. Adam is too strident and insulting for my taste. I recall making strong posts concerning AGuest, though. Frankly, I don't think so.

This notion that all Christians believe in Adam and Eve and the wrathful Jehovah is rubbish. If you want to condemn Christianity, though, the fundamentalist literal view is the way to go. Yet most Christians abhor such beliefs. A lot of this is socioeconomic related, too. People with higher education are unlikely to see the Bible as literal. How can I say Christ is the only way? He may be the truth, the way, and the life, for Western Christians. I've always known if I were born in a communist society, I would most likely be atheist. If I were born Buddhist, esp. in a remote area, i would be Buddhist. It is culturally determined.

Some atheist will not tell me I believe in Adam and Eve. Perhaps I did when I was preschool. The same atheist will not tell me I am stupid or uneducated. Are Witnesses vomit? No, Witnesses may be frustrated and very limited. If they had more knowledge, they would not be in a cult. Once you are in the cult, it is very hard to find alternate sources. When I was new here, I asked how any educated person could believe the Witness doctrines. Many educated people responded that they were in a crisis and found the Witnesses' apparent love a safe harbor.

People need to know basic information. In a decent society, public schools would provide such information. Hammering people over the head is not necessary. Hammering makes people retreat. Altho I am a died in the wool progressive with strong academic tendencies, I've had my struggles with fascism from the left. I heard thru the grape vine that Obama had problems at Harvard Law Review. Informative posts are so important. The tone makes a big difference. As I read Adam's posts, he makes many assumption in his argument that are not valid. Perhaps I do the same when I post. It is easy for an outsider to see assumptions. We are convinced of our assumptions. B/c we feel they are correct does not make them correct.

No, have I ever written such posts before during my entire time here? Yet I feel moved to so post now. A few atheists are ruining the reputation and respect of all atheists. It boils down to what your objective is. If it is convince, respect is important. Recent posts upset me b/c they reminded me of my JW father with the autocratic manner. You must believe this or you are garbage! I will enforce belief! The GB has existing structures if I want that in life. I don't think that this forum is only for lurkers. Imagine a lurker reading these posts. Vomit? Someone will find the Witnesses very enticing after a glimpse. It feeds into all the JW propaganda.

I have found your posts always to be insightful. Indeed, I welcome them. So something is markedly different lately. Pointing out inconsistencies or actual facts is one thing. Berating people is another. This is not a bar fight.
Qcmbr

Interesting Band. Yes, it is difficult to succinctly make a point without the use of generalisations or direct statements shorn of diplomacy. I suspect that quite often we (I) dash off statements while multi tasking that don't read well. I do find that things have quietened down overall - it used to be a complete warzone!
adamah

BOTR said- I never suggested it was about me. Society runs without either one of us. No one deserves vomit. It is such an ugly statement.

LOL! It's an expression taken from the OT? Is it any less offensive there, or are you engaging in more "special pleading"?

BOTR said-

(non-sequiturial stream of consciousness comments removed)

Agressively shoving atheism down people's throats is not going to stop one person from joining the Witnesses. Calling people names is not instructive. Educating people with critical thinking skills is more likely to achieve results. You are waging a military campaign here.

You know what ELSE isn't going to "help"? Straw-manning others by accusing them of calling others names (point it out, IF you can: you cannot, as I understand it's silly to call anyone names vs directly challenging the ideas they present).

You know what ELSE isn't going to help?

Labeling others as "zealots", or "militant atheists" who "shove atheism down believers throats" with "military campaigns", etc. That's SUCH a tired hackneyed Xian stereotype of atheists, that you should be ashamed to repeat it.

Simply put, you're engaging in 'ad hominem' attacks, and you of ALL people should know better than to attack the other person, rather than to challenge their IDEAS (and unfortunately, many people take their beliefs being challenged as a personal attack, since their ego is so entertwined with their beliefs they cannot discern where their beliefs end and they begin, AKA complete loss of a sense of internal boundaries).

BOTR, you DO realize that threads aren't on any 'required reading' list, and no one forces you to read (much less post) on threads which are trying to encourage "critical thinking", right? If you stopped and thought about it, you'd realize that's EXACTLY what myself and others (Cofty, OTWO, Qcmbr, etc) are trying to encourage.

BOTR said- We live in a diverse society. WOW- I thought I hated the Witnesses. If individual Witnesses were exposed to better public schools, I believe we would have fewer Witnesses. The WTBTS is very different, IMO. It deliberately misconstrues and lies.

BOTR, you're straw-manning the WT now, creating a phantom bogeyman; that is rarely helpful, and it actually conflicts with the more-mundane depiction offered by Ray Franz in his book, 'Crisis of Conscience'.

You seemingly believe there are "evul" (sic) people on the GB who are deliberately lying; instead, Ray Franz describes utterly mundane organizational dynamics at play, where most of the people are conformists ('yes men') who are afriad to speak their real opinions so they 'go with the flow', 'go along to get along'. He describes middle-level bureaucrats who are mostly sheep, with a few senior board members who have played the GB game long enough to actually set the agenda to get things done. The current organizational structure is designed to prevent a megalomaniacal president to take control (as in the past), since the GB theoretically has to reach a consensus now (which ironically is reached by vote, not 'Holy Spirit').

BOTR said- Of course, you are so much smarter and swift-footed than anyone else on this forum. It is hard for me to take you seriously. Pound. Pound. Pound. Autocrats dont't travel well, whether they are fundamentalists or atheists. We are human. I imagine I have done for my community, large and small, than you. Civility is good. I can tell you one human trait. People are more likely to listen to a civil person than a fist pounding zealot, imposing their will.

Flip-flop much?

Look, if you find reading my or anyone else's posts is triggering psychological stress, or making you think too much for your own comfort, then again, you're not required to read. Myself or anyone else cannot FORCE you to think, or MAKE you be reasonable. No one should HAVE to force you against your will to rely on reason and logic: that should be self-evident (esp for anyone who went to law school).

BOTR said- Perhaps something extraordinary happened to you with the Witnesses. This is a discussion forum. It would be boring if we all agreed.

Seriously, this is not about you or I.

From here on out, I will try to side-step your OT ramblings, since they have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand: in fact, your posts could be condensed down into a single phrase: "tone trolling" (a not-uncommonly encountered strategy used by theists against atheists to get them to shut up, since they cannot defeat their arguments with any evidence or logic).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_troll

A tone troll is someone who, in the course of a debate, dismisses an opponent's argument based on perceived crassness, hysteria, or anger. [1] It's a particularly slimy form of ad hominem attack beloved of Very Serious People, and its sliminess comes of it being quite commonly deployed against opponents lower on the privilege ladder.

Present an argument based on evidence, and we can proceed. But spare us the incessant 'tone trolling', as I for one won't be biting, but ignoring it.

FHN said-

So justice can be merciful.

Yeah, that's "moving goalposts", i.e. changing your position to something completely different than the original.

You changed the words to "can be", and dropped the superfluous "perfect" adjectives, thus entirely changing the meaning of the statement to something more reasonable. In fact, I would completely agree with that, since sure, justice can be merciful; however, that wasn't the claim you originally objected to:

Cofty said- God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

As I explained on pg 7:

'Perfect justice' implies rendering punishment in accord with prescribed legal procedure, with no room for lenience; 'perfect mercy' requires showing lenience from justice, so the two are fundamentally at odds.

The contradictory nature depends on what is actually meant by the adjective "perfect": it's not contradictory, if it's only meant to imply that a "perfect balance" can be struck between justice and mercy. But on their own, 'perfect justice' and 'perfect mercy' are fundamentally incompatible.

I implied that the adjective "perfect" is a 'weasel word', since 'perfect' is a matter of opinion, rendering the saying as meaningless fluff (more "Deepity"). It's absolutely meaningless in a World where the freedom to have a differing opinions exists (which may not apply when living under God's "perfect" theocracy).

Here's a pictorial depiction which says it all, with a statue named "Justice tempered by Mercy" (located in the Cumberland School of Law). The statue reflects the somewhat biasing influence existing between the two traits, since the blindfolded "Lady Justice" holds the 'scales of justice' which are supposed to balance the claims, based on the merits of the evidence; Lady Mercy is seen begging for leniency on behalf of the accused in the case, thus biasing the results away from "perfect justice"):

But as I say, it's not my argument of first-choice to demonstrate the contradictory claims for God found in the Bible, since the use of 'weasel words' renders it as a 'flipper'; there's easier examples to point to in the Bible of contradictory claims made for the traits of God.

Oh, and here's an in-depth analysis of the antagonistic nature of justice and mercy, if you prefer reading a more in-depth explanation (which applies all the moreso when one claims "perfect" justice and "perfect" mercy are possible):

http://new.exchristian.net/2012/08/why-mercy-and-justice-contradict-each.html

Adam
jgnat

We do have an adversarial justice system where both sides prepare their best argument and the most persuasive wins. That may not always be just and it is rarely swift. Way back when I attended my son's court dates, I watched various petty criminals come before at their preliminary hearing. One ancient drunk driver pleaded with the judge to enter a guilty plea there and then and be done with it. He was turned down. Without proper representation, the sentence could not be just.

There's attempts to allow for mediated sentences where the victim confronts the perpetrator and they agree on a punishment or compensation, but they are still the exception.
adamah

BOTR said-

Faith is not a synonym for empirical knowledge. Some atheists here love assumptions that are not valid.

Uh, no kidding? Now, show me where an atheist in this thread suggested it WAS?

It's clear you're confusing Qcmbr's summary of TEC's claim for Qcmbr's position; TEC has asserted that faith can be based on experiential evidence, even above, where she said this:

TEC said- I suspect that you are still unable to understand that faith IS based upon evidence. Faith is based upon what is heard.

In TEC's case, she claims that hearing the voice of Jesus is the basis of faith; hearing voices and experiencing visions in the Bible are considered as 'signs', and hence are related to performing miracles which are similarly called 'signs' (eg Saul's conversion after experiencing a vision of Jesus and hearing his voice telling him to stop persecuting Xians, or Jesus' feeding the crowds with bread and fish). The Bible indicates that signs DON'T build faith, which is why Jesus justified NOT performing miracles, at times.

TEC claims that her experiencing hearing the voice of Jesus build her faith, but that claim suggests TEC either doesn't understand the Bible's definition of 'faith', or seemingly doesn't feel the need to confine herself to the Bible's definition.

She doesn't understand that per the Bible, perceptible experiences contribute to belief via knowledge (gnosis), whereas faith supports belief in the absence of ANY perceptible evidence, eg the Bible says that believers need to ASK for faith as a gift from God.

TEC said- Truth is truth... regardless of if you and others want to label some as a 'wisdom saying'... or some about His coming Kingdom.

Holy Hades, TEC: are you still struggling with the Law of Identity (which most people learned as children), since you seemingly feel the need to constantly confirm it?

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”: “A is A and not ~A”. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence.

Worse, you seem to think it actually somehow constitutes a valid argument, when anyone can clearly see it's patently obvious, a law of identity, which arguably only constitutes an attempt at circular logic.

So please promise me that next time you feel the urge to repeat silly meaningless phrases like, "the truth is the truth", you'll catch yourself and refrain, rather than simply repeating an utterly unnecessary statement that only fills dead air, since YES, we all KNOW that things ARE in fact what they ARE: a dog is a dog, a car is a car, a house is a house, etc. That's by way of agreement, which is accepted.

However, I asked for an example of a TRUTH offered by Jesus.

Darlin', you are not HEARING what I said, or at least you are reading "truth is truth"... and NOT reading the rest of what I wrote, and so are missing the point. Truth is truth... regardless of what category you place it under: wisdom truth, about the Kingdom truth, about God truth, about science truth, etc. Different categories, but all truth. Same as... a dog is a dog, regardless of the breed. Same as... a car is a car, regardless of the make.

Do you understand my meaning a little better now?

TEC, I'm hearing you loud and clear, just as I always have, all along.

That's exactly WHY I carefully-defined and requested a VERY SPECIFIC example of "truth" upfront, since you continue to claim that Jesus IS "truth".

Now you seemingly want to back-pedal, since you seemingly know you cannot meet that requested burden of proof.

Should I repeat my request (slightly-reworded), to give you another shot at it?

Adam asked:

Give ONE example of a "truth" spoken of by Jesus?

I don't mean a generic WISDOM saying, or a reference to the promise of the Kingdom of God, etc, but a useful CONCRETE truth that was later verified by man to be a FACT (knowledge), i.e. something spoken by Jesus which advanced the general knowledge of mankind, and which suggested Jesus enjoyed the Divine vantage point which could ONLY result from his association in Heaven with God, the Intelligent Designer.

IN FACT, I can provide plenty of examples from the Bible which indicates the EXACT OPPOSITE: Jesus didn't know even BASIC FACTS that are now commonly accepted as "truths".

Adam

Fallacies about Faith

Share this