Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

  • Etude
    Etude

    Band on the Run:

    “Agressively shoving atheism down people's throats is not going to stop one person from joining the Witnesses.”

    I agree that there should always be civility in our discussions. Insults (unless warranted) tend to polarize people and deteriorate the conversation. But I object to your characterization that atheist try to shove Atheism down other’s throats. Yes, some do. But a lot of people like are simply trying to prevent theists from shoving religion down everyone else’s throats. It’s a reactionary response. Furthermore, those of us who a slightly more critical in thinking tend to object to untruths and ideas that are completely unsustainable. Those conditions give rise to situations where we just have to speak up.

    I must admit that I’m curious about your particular brand of Xianity. I’m guessing that you interpret the Bible in a different way, different enough to reject the traditional ideas of Adam & Eve or perhaps other teachings that are well entrenched in tradition. You’re not alone. Many denominations have been doing the same picking and choosing for centuries. Still, whatever it is you believe, I fairly certain that whatever is at your foundation has flaws (the existence of Christ as stated in the Bible, for one). I also believe that in a logical discussion, it would become evident that there isn’t much you can prove with certainty about what you believe.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Tammy: I take it that you were once one of the JWs

    No Tammy was never a JW. She insulted all of us once by claiming she "thinks too much" to have joined.

    Ironic isn't it?

  • tec
    tec

    Tammy: I take it that you were once one of the JWs.

    I was not. I studied for two years. Could not wrap my head around some things that they taught. But in the end, I was tired of thinking and of trying to figure/reason it out; I put the blinders on and twisted my thinking so that I could accept that what they said might be true... or that perhaps they just needed new light to catch up to what I knew was true. Regardless of how I justified it... I had accepted that they were God's chosen organization, that He was leading them, and I made the decision to get baptized. One (maybe two, I forget now) week after I told the woman who studied with me of my decision, I told her instead that I needed to stop our sessions and do my own private study (of the bible). I was not getting baptized.

    This drastic change came because I discovered that I had read something wrong in the red revelation book about Armageddon. I thought everyone... including those who died at Armageddon... got a resurrection. I did not realize that everyone who died at armageddon did not get another chance... and how could I hope for that to come at any day, knowing that it would mean the death of all my loved ones (children, all family, husband, etc) No one in my family was going to become a jw at all, much less any time soon. I could not be part of it. I didn't really get far enough into the rest of the consequences, thinking about all the people like my family who would die just because they were not jws.

    I needed time away from the study, so that I could study without a weekly indoctrination. Which is how I can see why it is so hard for a born in, or already baptized to break free of what they tell you to think and believe. You have 3-4 indoctrination/reinforcement sessions a week. Family study nights using wt literature. Field service. Meeting prep. Etc, etc.

    But many still manage to do it. You hear that something is wrong; you hear to come out; you hear that Christ is not the one the wts points you toward; and/or you see that the teachings and actions of the people in the org are NOT of love, or of God or of Christ.

    Did you believe that they had the “truth” then?

    I believed that they were imperfect... but that they were God's organization.

    Your statement “Truth is truth…” needs clarification.

    Most of the time when I say that... it is with the added: 'regardless of who believes it or doesn't believe it'. Or something like that.

    Truth is truth, is not a definition of truth. I simply mean that truth is truth... regardless of what you or I or anyone THINKS is truth; or regardless of who does or does not accept it.

    I don't know which specific post you are referring to here, and I don't feel like scouring the thread. If you could point me to it, then I could better comment. I think most of the rest of your comments are based on this. So I will wait to comment on them until after you can clarify for me what post you meant. Thank you.

    Peace to you,

    tammy

  • paranoia agent
    paranoia agent

    I love Hitchens quote on faith "Trust is not the same as faith. A friend is someone you trust. Putting faith in anyone is a big mistake."

  • Etude
    Etude

    tec

    Tammy, sorry for the incorrect assumption (and thank you cofty). Nevertheless, you said you "studied" for a while with the witlesses. So, at least you're familiar with their m.o. After some time reading your posts, I have found that what you now have is not so different than theirs. The perfect example is your circularity in saying "Truth is truth".

    "I simply mean that truth is truth... regardless of what you or I or anyone THINKS is truth; or regardless of who does or does not accept it."

    On the face of it, that statement rings true. But in the same vein, bad is bad, boys will be boys and opinions will be like assholes. But, who gets to make that determination? I suppose we can say that each of us do. But not arbitrarily -- not if what is considered truth is going to remain true. This is why we have some tools in order to make that determination. Truth can only be that which is verifiable or confirmed. It is not what someone thinks it is in their head. It has to agree with reality or at least the common reality we all share. It has to make sense to us via logic. The verification of truth is founded on real knowledge and not on what we simply have come to believe.

    So, if I say that there is no possible way to determine that there is a Supreme Being, the burden of proof to the contrary must be something I can, not just accept for the sake of belief, but accept because the evidence is undeniable. You can claim that "faith" is the key to believing. But faith, if there is such a thing and is real, must also meet the same burden of proof. That it sometimes works out and events and ideas seem to coincide does not make anything true. You have built an elaborate universe in your mind about what is and what is not. That's OK. But you must expect that lacking any evidence (even in the form of reasoning), others will challenge you and point out the flaws in your thinking.

    I think that I've expressed the gist of what I was trying to say without referring back to specific examples in your narrative. While the rest of the conversation has drifted away from your original poser, the fundamental problem is that what you started to discuss is unfounded or untrue resulting in the commentary that was generated.

  • tec
    tec

    Tammy, sorry for the incorrect assumption (and thank you cofty).

    No problem. Cofty misrepresents me, but that has been par for the course for some time.

    Nevertheless, you said you "studied" for a while with the witlesses. So, at least you're familiar with their m.o.

    I studied with the witnesses, yes, and learned their 'mo' somewhat. I have learend more from this site and jwfacts then I learned in the two year study, about them.

    After some time reading your posts, I have found that what you now have is not so different than theirs. The perfect example is your circularity in saying "Truth is truth".

    I must disagree with both sentiments. But I can only address the one example that you gave... and I had to go looking for it myself because I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

    What I was responding to:

    TEC, you sure use a loose definition of "truth"? But regardless, can you give ONE example of a "truth" spoken of by Jesus? I don't mean a WISDOM saying, or a reference to the promise of the Kingdom of God, etc, but a useful CONCRETE truth that was a proven fact, a breakthrough for the knowledge of mankind.

    And my response:

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

    Can you please tell me what parallel you are seeing? Someone wanted to limit my response to a "type" of truth being spoken about... and that makes no sense to me. I don't categorize different 'kinds' of truth.

    But, who gets to make that determination?

    Well apparently the person who was trying to limit what I could give as an example of truth.

    It was not me doing that.

    Nor have I ever told or even asked someone else to believe something just because I heard it from Christ and shared it on the board. I have never asked anyone to ever take my word for anything... and I have not threatened anyone with Armageddon or death or hellfire or any other misfortune unless they agree with me, and come into 'my truth'. ( a phrase i would NEVER use, hence the quotation marks) Nor have I ever not expected that others will not challenge. Indeed. Challenge. Test. Ask for yourself. Look up the scriptures. Think and reason for yoursel. I have not stated otherwise.

    So I have to say that I am still failing to see the parallel or point that you are making.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • adamah
    adamah

    Etude said-

    The perfect example is your circularity in saying "Truth is truth".

    Yeah, the basic 'law of identity' (i.e. things are called what we agree to call them) is NOT an argument, but recognition of the need to adopt unique word in language to allow communication to occur. When used as a pseudo-argument, it's useless, since it completely avoids the question of WHETHER the actual claim is true or not, but simply digresses to citing the convention itself.

    WTBTS doesn't own the exclusive rights to use of circular reasoning (AKA 'begging the question', simply repeating the very premise that is being questioned), as it's commonly used by others (not just TEC); that isn't an 'appeal to popularity' to excuse it's use, just an observation of the prevalence. It's not so easy to spot in other uses, esp when it's presented in more than three words.

    Adam

  • Sayswho
    Sayswho

    well i just lost about 3 min of my life skimming through this...i wiil try and get it back with a scotch, it will help me in forgeting what i read.

    That's my fallacy (poor reasoning) of what makes sence or what what will help me cope with BS.

    Edited: no offense intended:) must be the scotch influence before i read this...

    SW

  • Etude
    Etude

    tec

    Tammy:

    It took a little bit of searching to find at least one major example (there have been many more) were you use the same logic. I didn't want to dig up the minutia of what you say because much of it is tidious. But here's one example from a year ago:

    "I can't imagine not believing in God"

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members%2fprivate%2f243388%2f27%2fI-cant-imagine-not-believing-in-God#4589689

    The thread is replete with responses to your statements, including your repetition of the "truth is truth" phrase. That’s on page 27 of a 33-page long discussion. I would also recommend you read the very last page, to which you never commented.

  • tec
    tec

    Etude, what is your point please?

    I read the last page on that thread and your post a year ago. I had nothing further to add to what I had already said in that thread. I did not think we were getting anywhere with many misunderstandings between us. I am sorry, I should have just said that so that you did not think I simply had not seen the post.

    Would you like to continue that conversation?

    Peace,

    tammy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit