Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Etude

  Perry: I seem to recall another thread here, which assumed that atheists started out resisting the idea of God. I’m not saying that this is the issue here. However, just in case, it’s a too-quick an assumption that when people become atheists it always happens suddenly and irrevocably. I for one always wanted to “believe”. My choice to not believe was a reluctant one, but an inevitable one based on what I learned and reasoned.

  The problem with what you stated is that “encountering God” is a very subjective thing. This is where my point about “wanting to believe” is not sufficient to creating the outcome you describe for you and Kirstin. It is so self-contained in the head of the one experiencing it that it becomes an improbable and unsustainable event for the impartial on-looker. If someone doesn’t get it, it’s usually explained away as the fault of the person not really wanting it or not doing something right. I don’t buy it. It seems to me a lot easier to believe if one is already predisposed, the way I was about so many religions, but especially about God.

  I’m also intrigued about Kirstin’s conversion from an “uber-liberal” to what I assume (the Fox-So-Called-News) ultra-conservative mindset. I find it intriguing in light of that mindset’s practice of Social Darwinism contrary to Christ’s teachings. That’s not to say that Kirstin herself believes in not providing for the poor. But it would seem she’s embracing the same type of thinking as the other pundits on Fox News. I also have misgivings between the alignment of fundamental religious beliefs and the conservative political agenda that happens to think of the poor as leaches on our government’s ability to social welfare.

  I addressed the idea of what happens in one’s head or what the experience my actually transpire when someone is “touched by the lord” or when “Christ comes knocking” or when the “Holy Spirit takes over you”. I wrote at length with Tammy in this thread, especially from page 27 onward. What I’ve come to know, given any lack of verification I can get my hands on, is that the “conversion processes” or the “being saved” idea is a very individual and personal idea that cannot be verified outside the one who experiences it. Therefore, it’s impossible to verify, replicate or emulate as much as one wants to. I’m sure there are many reasons for the happening, ones that may have some ultimate value. But that doesn’t make the idea of God true or real.
• 

  adamah

  The cynic in me suspects that Fox wanted to hire Kirsten's pretty blonde face, but knew they'd have to deal with the possibility of blowback when/if her atheist past came out of the closet. It's not like Fox has a stellar track record in integrity in such matters, and perhaps Kirsten had no qualms with playing along with the narrative in order to land not only the consult job, but also the Xian boyfriend who was ready to break up with her over the issue.

  Point being, the reasons people profess belief are multi-factorial, and hard to know. What takes true courage is to stand up for what you actually DO believe despite outward pressures, after having the courage to actually research WHAT you believe to "make sure of all things, holding fast to what is true".
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  "Former atheist Kirsten Powers is now a Bible-believing Christian champion"

  Oh, the irony of having this headline in a fallacy avoidance thread!

  I see at least two fallacies in this one sentence alone - appeal to authority and hasty generalization.

  How about this: "Former Yankies fan is now a die-hard Red Sox supporter". Wow, The RedSox must be all that....
• 

  Perry

  I’m also intrigued about Kirstin’s conversion from an “uber-liberal” to what I assume (the Fox-So-Called-News) ultra-conservative mindset.

  Etude,

  If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you missed some of the details. Kirsen is a liberal democrat commentator on Fox News brought in to argue that side when faced with conservative arguments. She still does that as far as I know.

  What I’ve come to know, given any lack of verification I can get my hands on, is that the “conversion processes” or the “being saved” idea is a very individual and personal idea that cannot be verified outside the one who experiences it. Therefore, it’s impossible to verify, replicate or emulate as much as one wants to.

  I would have to agree with the gist of your statement in bold above. I think God did a very public appearance initially when he went around making the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead rise. He was voluntarily murdered for doing the kinds of things that only God could do..... including dying FOR the childen of Adam.

  Now he reveals himself privately once someone decides to believe. Do you blame him?
• 

  Comatose

  God is afraid?
• 

  Perry

  No, not afraid. God is Holy, good and utterly righteous. His appearance and ministry in the person of Jesus proved that there was nothing redeemable in man. We are by nature his enemy and he, our enemy..... even though he is the personification of our hightest values. Man, in his current state is at war with himself as much as he is with God.

  It's not so much that man doesn't choose God....it's that he is so depraved and full of himself that he CAN'T choose God..... without GRACE. Get it now?

  "Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use? What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction? And if this was done to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it? 25 It is as he says also in Ho·se′a: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not loved, ‘beloved’; 26 and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”- Romans 9 New World translation
• 

  Qcmbr

  Similar stories exist within the Mormon world with regards to conversion from other points of view ( in my immediate experience I was part of the conversion process of a JW , a Satanist, two liberal atheists, a bunch of Catholics, two born agains and lots of agnostics ) , most of them related a change, a spiritual awakening, a spiritual witness ( which I shared for most of them and can verify as I also felt it) and a conviction that they had truth.

  The logic you exercise Perry argues that Mormonism is true. This struggle to change and believe lends weight to the strength of the argument.

  Except it doesn't. Our brains change their wiring slowly ( see how long it takes to learn something) but when a fundamental change occurs ( like falling in love, falling out of love, getting religion, losing religion, a death of a family member and so on) vast amounts of chemicals are released to speed up and facilitate the process. Emotions can see saw, thinking can vary from confusion through to painful clarity and the person you are changes. It is common to describe this process as difficult ( 'I still love him' , ' I didn't want to accept the evidence', 'I couldn't deny the Book of Mormon even though I wanted to') but that doesn't make it divine, right or special.

  She ruins any credibility for me by admitting her boyfriend was about to dump her over her beliefs. I made an internal deal, if on telling my wife I no longer believed in Mormonism she wanted to leave me, that I would recant, tow the line and pretend to believe because losing my family was not a price I was willing to pay and I'd much rather play act than ruin relationships. People do incredible things for the people they love. Many Mormon baptisms mentioned above were 30 something women with children from absent fathers...
• 

  rawe

  Hi Perry,

  "Now he reveals himself privately once someone decides to believe. Do you blame him?"

  A general observation can be made on this point. The more distant the account of God's dealing is from the audience the larger in scope the action tends to be (not always of course). Thus in the NT miracles happen only in a small area with just a few people around, or even just one. But in the OT, while this is sometimes reported (see 1 Samuel 3 where God speaks to Samuel regarding Eli), there are much larger settings for some of the accounts, including of course a world-wide flood, separating the waters of the Red Sea, etc.

  If however, someone reports being alone and hearing a voice, there is no reason we are compelled to believe it is anything other than what is going on in the mind of the person who had the experience. Of course if God chose to communicate something he would know that would be impossible for the subject to know, such as the winning numbers for the next 10 state lotteries, then we may need to conclude something different.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  rawe

  Hi Perry,

  "It's not so much that man doesn't choose God....it's that he is so depraved and full of himself that he CAN'T choose God..... without GRACE. Get it now?"

  Human survival within a group can often be tied to obedience to a leader within the group. Other moral proposition also can come into play such as a willingness to share, by loyal, not cheat, etc. It should not surprise us that authors of Biblical material were obsessed with obedience and the idea there was some intrinsic defect of humans that caused bad behavior. However, such, I now believe, is a terrible way to view our fellow humans. To assume the starting position is defective and by God, they better hope for the grace of God, or else they're doomed.

  None of us need be trapped by the writings of Hosea or Paul -- they're just men with ideas, some of which may be good, some of which may be off in the weeds.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  myelaine

  dear Tammy...

  your explaination about "law of love" that you refer to a lot in conjunction with your interpretation of the sheep and goats scripture doesn't make sense.

  the law will be written on the hearts of people who believe in God, written by God. It isn't what's in a persons heart naturally. When the scripture talks about love being the summation of the law and the prophets etc...the first and most important was about loving God...even in the OT loving God first was THE motivation to inculcate the other laws into your heart.

  in the NT a scripture that reflects this thought is found in 2 john 4-6 ...this is love that we walk according to His commandments, walking in truth as we received commandment from the Father. (The love that God commands is first love Him so that we can walk according to TRUTH and then we love each other.(refering to those in the body of Christ) truth and true love go hand in hand. the "law of love" that you talk about seems to be an attempt on your part to "allow" for people the OPTION of not making a decision for Christ at this time. The gospel message in context is about this IS the day of salvation. You're sending a very subtle message when you teach this message and at the same time say "the spirit and the bride say come"...what could be nicer after a high control cult? Someone intamating that no decision is required...it's cool with your lord as long as those, who chose not to make a decision, are nice to the least of His brothers...that is why what you teach is an anti-christ message. It's perfect for priming peoples hearts to accept THE anti-christ...he's all about peace and not repentance and turning to God too.

  with the gospel message and the great commission in mind do you really think that Jesus sent you ahead of Himself to preach that He's going to give an anti-christ teaching a free pass? I'm serious, do you realise what you are doing?

  love michelle