Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  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?

  I would not worship such a prick.

  It is very consistent of people to say that if some must suffer with birth defects and disaster because of some bigger issue, and many of those suffering are children who were born innocent and remained ignorant of these bigger issues, then the price God demands of humans, no matter the reward for worship, is too high. No thanks.
• 

  Island Man

  This thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

  .

  .

  .

  Faith = good and moral. Lack of faith = bad and immoral. (This one leads into a whole host of others. Such as a person of faith is BETTER THAN a person of non-faith. More loving; more generous; more trustworthy.)

  Well tec, I agree with you that not all theists subscribe to the thinking in bold above. However, given that a large percentage of theists do - I'm willing to bet the majority of them - how can you honestly say that atheists are at fault for thinking theists believe that? I think you might be making the mistake of appointing your own minority view (the correct view) as being representative of the views of all theists, when in truth and in fact the view in bold above is the more prevalent and representative view among theists in general.

  To illustrate my point: imagine there is a JW who does not follow the JW organization's teachings to shun dissassociated ones. This JW then claims that non-JWs are mistaken in thinking that JWs shun disassocaited ones by citing his own minority viewpoint on the matter as if that were true of all or even most JWs. This is synonymous with what you're doing.

  You are reasoning that since you and some other theists don't believe "Faith = good and moral. Lack of faith = bad and immoral" then atheists who beleive that theists beleive that are mistaken. This reasoning is a fallacy because it ignores the fact that most theists actually do subscribe to the erroneous view that you and a minority of other theists reject. I have heard many a theist argue against atheism by using the argument that lack of faith in God means there is no basis for morality and that atheism thus leads to an amoral life.

  I'm sorry tec but your point as made is incorrect. What you could say is that atheists would be wrong to think that all theists subscribe to the particular viewpoint. But you can't fault them for thinking that theists in general subscribe to that viewpoint.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Island Man...

  I think the arguement is that without an objective foundation (God's law) then all attempts to outline "moral regulations" are subject to the bias or lack of bias in those making the laws.

  an extreme example might be that pedophiles(sp?)might get traction in their attempt to redefine that act as a sexual orientation...no better or worse than any other sexual orientation. Morality and a productive and considerate set of values becomes subjective...and before you know it every objection is met with the label "intolerant" until values and morality don't mean anything anymore...we can see this to some extent in society today in peoples objection to the teaching of islam. People object to the teaching of mohammad and the fact that he is held up as the exemplar of that faith. To draw attention to the things that he taught as objectionable to WESTERN values(as being the absolute will of allah for all mankind for all time) will result in being labeled intolerant. their "law" or morality and value system is subject to mohammad's teaching...not what is a commonly accepted western moral and value "platform". It's crazy...their "system" is flawed by our standards but already we have dropped the ball in MAINTAINING the system we had in place and so we as a society have to reap the consequences of the fact that we can not get the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. One persons freedom is another persons captivity.

  love michelle
• 

  adamah

  Myelaine said- I think the arguement is that without an objective foundation (God's law) then all attempts to outline "moral regulations" are subject to the bias or lack of bias in those making the laws.

  And what's the problem with that? HOW ELSE should a community decide on what laws to implement, aside from using community-based standards? Laws need to change as social attitudes and conditions change, and adopting laws that worked 3,000 yrs ago is the absolute HEIGHT of foolishness.

  Myelaine said- An extreme example might be that pedophiles(sp?) might get traction in their attempt to redefine that act as a sexual orientation...no better or worse than any other sexual orientation.

  So then, since you threw the example of pedophilia out there, what exactly does 'God's law' have to say on the subject of pedophilia? Can you cite a scripture where God-given morality explains God's views?

  You cannot, since the Bible doesn't offer any details.

  In fact, the OT often reflects the common attitude prevalent in the Ancient Near East 3,000 yrs ago, such that children were the property of the patriarch, and the father could do pretty damned-well with them as he pleased (eg Lot offered his daughters to the angry mob to be raped).

  But let's set that MAJOR problem aside for a moment, to ask a couple of questions about pedophilia and morality:

  1) Do you consider that laws in the US have generally reflected the mores of a God-fearing Nation over the past century or two, such that our laws generally reflect Bible-based morality on pedophilia?

  2) Under what age do you consider child pedophilia to occur, i.e. at what age is a child able to give consent to engage in sex with an adult?

  Adam
• 

  Island Man

  So then, since you threw the example of pedophilia out there, what exactly does 'God's law' have to say on the subject of pedophilia? Can you cite a scripture where God-given morality explains God's views?

  You cannot, since the Bible doesn't offer any details.

  But the Quran does speak about Mohammed marrying underaged females . . . Which brings us to the next question that he hasn't considered, Adam: whose version of 'God's Law' do we use - the Bible, the Quran, The Book of Mormon? The NWT? (sorry, I just had to. )
• 

  adamah

  Island man said-

  But the Quran does speak about Mohammed marrying underaged females . . . Which brings us to the next question that he hasn't considered, Adam: whose version of 'God's Law' do we use - the Bible, the Quran, The Book of Mormon? The NWT? (sorry, I just had to.

  Heck, if the idea is that "older is better", then let's quit pussy-footing around and just adopt the far-older Mesopotamian cuneiform law code which pre-dates the Torah by 1,000 yrs, called the Code of Ur-Nammu:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

  It's actually not much different from Mosaic Law, in many parts (note the slavery codes, which are similiar to the Torah):

  Among the surviving laws are these:

  • 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
  • 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
  • 3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
  • 4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
  • 5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
  • 6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
  • 7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (§4 in some translations)
  • 8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
  • 9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
  • 10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
  • 11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
  • 13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)
  • 14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
  • 15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
  • 17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
  • 18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver. (15)
  • 19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
  • 20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
  • 21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver. (18)
  • 22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (19)
  • 24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him. (21)
  • 25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt. (22)
  • 28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver. (25)
  • 29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case. (26)
  • 30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses. (27)
  • 31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (28)
  • 32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (29)

  Generally speaking, though, I find that new laws are generally preferable than old stale ancient laws, and there ought to be a modern law passed that anyone looking to any ancient legal code which is over 1,000 yrs old should automatically be held for psychiatric eval, since giving special merit to ancient laws is the height of insanity.

  Adam
• 

  Island Man

  I think the arguement is that without an objective foundation (God's law) then all attempts to outline "moral regulations" are subject to the bias or lack of bias in those making the laws.

  We don't need 'God's law' for an objective foundation of morality. In fact, many of the codes found in the bible are considered in today's society as being atrocious! But in the ancient society of bible times they were considered acceptable. So if anything the bible actually shows that even its sense of morality is tainted by bias - the bias of the brutish, mysogynistic culture of ancient times. Now imagine if christians were beholden to accept all of the law in the OT of the bible as God's objective, unchanging law. We would be owning slaves, stoning adulterers to death, etc. Aren't you glad our sense of morality has grown over time as we have grown in knowledge?

  Humans can determine - and have always determined - what kinds of conduct are proper and improper by studying the results of such conduct on the individual and the society as a whole. Those forms of conduct that have been proven to be detrimental to the individual and society is deemed improper. When humans wrote religous texts they incorporated those moral codes into them and used to threat of God's wrath to scare people into following them. The bible - religion - is not the source of objective morality but only a means used by religionists to motivate others to follow the pre-existing moral code.
• 

  Perry

  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.

  rawe,

  But it's true. We cannot live up to our highest ideals. We can imagine them, but we can't get there. We want our high sounding religions and ideologies, our rules etc., etc. etc. but not Him personally. People want a system where they can participate in their salvation. God says no. You cannot partcipate in your own salvation, it is a gift. Life is in HIM....period. It is not found anywhere else.

  When God finally took the form of man and manifested our highest ideals, we killed him for it because we loved our traditions and systematic ways of betterment rather than the Author of it all. Man is utterly depraved and is infected with vanity. He naturally sees only himself usually displayed in the form of a god, ideology or idol that he fashions in his own image. The WT is just another idol.

  I chose the real deal after leaving the WT. God revealed himself to me and continually does so. I am NEVER alone, and he continually adds to me and what is mine based on my stewardship of what he entrusts to me. I don't deserve any of it. But I have prepared myself to receive what Christ has. God has obligated himself to me and anyone else who is called a son of God. God requires belief from me on my part and he pretty much does the rest. Belief is not easy. But belief is what moves the hand of God in the believers life.

  It is a completely different way of living; and one that is likely to appear foolish to an unbeliever. But, I've been doing this for many years now and it gets results, results, results. I'm all about results. It works. Prior to my belief and trust in Christ, there was little that worked to the degree that I wished it to in my life. I was powerless against my vices.
• 

  rawe

  Hi Perry,

  "You cannot partcipate in your own salvation, it is a gift."

  Fundementally, Jehovah's Witnesses believe this too -- that salvation is a free gift. They also believe in original sin.

  "Man is utterly depraved and is infected with vanity."

  You can believe that if you wish, but it is not the only view of humankind. The trap I see in this form of thinking is not much different than the "rotten old system of things" talk one hears at the Kingdom Hall. Although, there are many "improving world conditions" -- just think of how many childhood diseases have been reduced or removed in recent history -- saying such is not permitted within the Witness faith. It is not permitted, because it conflicts with a narrative about worsening world conditions and last days, etc. If man is not vain and depraved as you say, then what? Perhaps a story about an internal defect in need of a supernatural fix won't sound as correct.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  rawe

  Hi Perry,

  "Prior to my belief and trust in Christ, there was little that worked to the degree that I wished it to in my life. I was powerless against my vices."

  btw- If you're Christian faith has helped you overcome something negative in your life -- I am happy for you and good for you! Although I'm an atheist, I don't believe being religious is entirely negative. Even the Witnesses have proved to be the needed motivation for some to overcome smoking and other bad habits.

  Cheers,

  -Randy