Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Peace to you!

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

  This is NOT a thread about false things that atheists think ABOUT theists. Or a thread about things that atheists SAY about theists. It is just about false things that some of you atheists (or anyone) think that some of us people of faith, believe. Might even bring some better understanding between some.

  I also might be using the word fallacy wrong here, so just to make it clear what I am speaking about:

  "A false or mistaken idea based on faulty knowledge or reasoning."

  "A deceptive, misleading, false notion or belief."

  So I will start with a couple, and since it is me, I am of course speaking of faith in Christ and God:

  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.)

  Untrue.

  A non-believer can be just as loving and moral - sometimes more so - than a person of faith. (and vice versa) Because the law of love is written upon their hearts, causes them to act in accordance to that law, naturally. (just as Paul spoke about the law being written upon the hearts of the gentiles, causing them to do the things required by the law, naturally)

  I know that for a long time people have believed this to be true (and some still do)... but perhaps some of our atheists can keep in mind that this was always faulty reasoning on their behalf... the same as the wts falsely teaches that everyone outside the wts is BAD and immoral and of satan.

  Everyone except Christians go to hell. (whatever version of hell one might believe in, including simply the outer darkness outside of the Kingdom, and the eventual lake of fire - the second death)

  Untrue.

  There are atheists, agnostics, people of other beliefs/faiths/religion - who may enter the kingdom as subjects of the kingdom, based on their deeds (as recorded in their books at the second resurrection), and according to the parable of the sheep and the goats (doing good to Christ by doing good to even the least of his brothers as the sheep; and the reverse as the goats). I mean obviously, they are no longer atheists or agnostics or people of other faiths at this time, lol. But perhaps just did not know Christ in their lives (for whatever reason).

  But the subjects of the Kingdom are not Christians (one annointed with holy spirit, so as to be one with Christ) because... all Christians were gathered to Christ upon his return (the first resurrection); and all Christians rule, a thousand years, as kings and priests with Him in His Kingdom... and there is NO judgment for them.

  I hope this may helps some to understand/see/consider that God is both just AND merciful. (in fact, justice without mercy, is not justice at all)

  Neither God nor Christ will unjustly cast out of the kingdom (or send to 'hell').

  Men are in fact judged by their own deeds and words... AND... by the very measure that they use to judge.

  I'm having a hard time thinking of other things I wanted to explain, lol. One of the main ones I wanted to address was the first one I listed here. I would like to address one thing that is more personal to me and my faith, but I will wait a bit. Perhaps if others start to write their own reasons, more things will come to me. But those are a couple of mistakes that I have seen some atheists bring up, and while they are true of some beleivers, they are not true of my faith, and I expect they are not true of the faith of many believers on this forum.

  So I am going to start with these two, and add as they come.

  Peace to you again,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

  That is a logical impossibility like a married bachelor.
• 

  Vidiot

  Wow, tec.

  You're starting to sound almost Unitarian.
• 

  Gopher

  Hi Tammy.

  Your first point "Faith = good and moral. Lack of faith = bad and immoral" seems to be what some vocal THEISTS actually say about ATHEISTS. I have never heard an atheist say anything like this.

  Actually in the discussions about traits of believers versus those of unbelievers, I am sick of canards that vocal people from both sides are heard to say -- vocal theists say what you said above (after all, if an atheist doesn't have a god watching over him/her, what motiviation does he/she have to behave well).

  I'm not saying ALL theists believe that morality is a function of belief -- most probably don't.

  I've also heard some atheists imply or say that believers cannot properly use their head. That's insulting and not true as I have believing friends and my own believing sister who are quite sharp intellectually.
  
  I am tired of these personal insults and assumptions about ones morality or thoughtfulness. The belief or the thought is not necessarily the same as the believer or the thinker.
• 

  BobFlanagan007

  I agree with Gother. It is theists who claim "Faith = Moral, Lack of Faith Immoral" I have never heard an atheist say such a thing.

  As for your point regarding hell, whether hell is literal or not why would God knowingly create people with full foreknowledge they will not believe in him or meet his moral standards and then punish them for this?

  This God person sounds far from "just and mercilful" and it fills my heart with joy and peace to know he does not and can not exist.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Well I'm confused. Is this a thread about what atheists think about theists or is it a thread about what atheists say about theists or is it a thread about what atheists should think about theists or is it a thread about what Tec thinks atheists think about theists ?

  Tec - since you aren't an atheist and apparently were born a fully fledged gnostic Christian how on earth do you have a clue about what atheists think about theists? Have you still not moved on in your understanding that atheism isn't a unified group with some dogma. You'd have more ground for assertions if you chose an actual philosophy ( rationalism? Humanism? Skepticism?) rather than a word describing a state. Really suggests you don't actually read to understand the real positions of those who claim atheism and labour to explain.

  I do think you have an important voice here but it would be great if you one day thought about how absurd it is for a stonewalling believer ( you for example) to claim greater insights than those who have been on both sides of the fence.We who have been believers understand your worldview, really, we do.
• 

  jgnat

  It's a bait-and-switch. I take umbrage to your definition of faith, tec. Which leads to all sorts of differences and misunderstandings.
• 

  Terry

  TEC: A non-believer can be just as loving and moral - sometimes more so - than a person of faith. (and vice versa) Because the law of love is written upon their hearts, causes them to act in accordance to that law, naturally.

  I know what non-believer means.

  I know what loving and moral mean.

  But, I need clarification on what "law of love" means and how you define it (upon what actual basis.)

  I don't know what "written upon their hearts" means other than in some poetic setting.

  To call something which is supernatural a "law" won't fit into my mind.

  Thanks for your efforts to educate a poor Texas lad.
• 

  adamah

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

  Kudos to TEC for trying to bridge the gap, although I'd only point out a GREAT need to avoid over-generalizations (eg as if she's able to speak on behalf of ALL theists as to what they believe) and a less-confusing use of language.

  Adam
• 

  tec

  For Q:

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

  God cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

  That is a logical impossibility like a married bachelor.

  By man's defintion of justice, perhaps.

  Even in the law, the most important matters were always love, mercy, forgivness. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

  Wow, tec.

  You're starting to sound almost Unitarian.

  You mean like a Universalist?

  I would LOVE to believe that everyone would turn and repent and be saved; or that everyone has love in them as revealed in the things that they say and do. (from what is written in their books at the resurrection) But that is not the case. Some are cast out of the Kingdom (the same ones who are devoured by fire when they ride out to destroy the Kingdom and those in the Kingdom), and anyone whose name is not written in the lamb's book of life, is subject to the lake of fire (the second death)

  I'm not saying ALL theists believe that morality is a function of belief -- most probably don't.,... GOPHER

  Yes, I am sorry if I was unclear in this. Some DO say that. I don't though, and I don't know many people on this forum (or in real life) who DO think that. In a video that someone shared on another thread, the speaker who has coined the phrase (faith is pretending to know something that you don't know), is fighting to change the meaning of the word because 'believers believe that faith = morality, and that must be changed."

  Well, we don't all think that. So you don't need to try to change the meaning of the word, implying something equally false.

  As for your point regarding hell, whether hell is literal or not why would God knowingly create people with full foreknowledge they will not believe in him or meet his moral standards and then punish them for this?

  Bob, if you re-read my post, you will see that this is not my faith. Or at least I hope you will see that.

  how on earth do you have a clue about what atheists think about theists?

  Only by what they have said. Such as the speaker I mentioned above (the 'faith is pretending to know things that you don't know' guy) If OTWO is reading, maybe he could repost the video, or I will look for it. But there were many things that he said, that did not apply to my faith (and I suspect not to a lot of people's faith). Though it would apply to some, I am sure.

  Have you still not moved on in your understanding that atheism isn't a unified group with some dogma. You'd have more ground for assertions if you chose an actual philosophy ( rationalism? Humanism? Skepticism?) rather than a word describing a state. Really suggests you don't actually read to understand the real positions of those who claim atheism and labour to explain.

  I have never thought that atheism is a unified group with some dogma. If you read my OP, you will see that I even qualify atheists with 'some' atheists.

  So after all this time, are you still applying things to me that do NOT apply to me OR to my faith?

  I do think you have an important voice here but it would be great if you one day thought about how absurd it is for a stonewalling believer ( you for example) to claim greater insights than those who have been on both sides of the fence.We who have been believers understand your worldview, really, we do.

  I know that you think you do. But you apparently do not. Hence the point of the thread.

  Peace,

  tammy