Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,623 Year: 4,880/9,624 Month: 228/427 Week: 38/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 466 of 566 (598731)
01-02-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:20 AM


liars, or lied to?
dwise1 writes:
I call for honesty and truthfullness. Far too many creationists (especially those of "creation science" and ID persuasion) choose deception and guile.
i don't know that i would agree with that. as you stated upthread,
quote:
As I have explained before, while "creation science" is a pack of lies, that does not make all who regurgitate those lies liars. In order to be a liar, one must be aware that the falsehoods that one is disseminating are indeed false. Most creationists are followers who regurgitate the lies that they have been fed and who in most cases actually believe those lies to be true. The reason why those creationists really hate to discuss and support their claims is because they do not understand the bullshit that they've just regurgitated; they literally cannot discuss any of it. They do not know any better.
i do not suspect they are choosing guile and deception. rather, they are victims of the lies, and they are desperately trying to avoid critical examination of the lies upon which they have constructed their theology. as you point out, once this happens, it often takes faith in general with it.
they are essentially lying to themselves first and foremost, and i do not think this necessarily constitutes the same thing as outright deception of others. they are not doing it deceive others, for they fool no one but themselves.
in any case, you can pretty clearly see how dawn is doing that very thing in this thread. why else would a valid, supportable reason to "deconvert" have to be personal to dawn, such that we should convince him?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:20 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:47 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 477 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 3:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 467 of 566 (598732)
01-02-2011 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 2:36 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
aw Jeebus! What a frakin' idiot!
Instead of sticking to the topic of the reasons for deconversion, you keep pulling it off into arguments over Isaiha and other arguments over prophecies and inspiration, etc. None of which has anything to do with deconversion.
Please get a frakin' clue!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:52 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 494 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 4:24 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 468 of 566 (598733)
01-02-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 2:36 AM


Re: liars, or lied to?
in any case, you can pretty clearly see how dawn is doing that very thing in this thread. why else would a valid, supportable reason to "deconvert" have to be personal to dawn, such that we should convince him?
because its the rational way to proceed
let me help you here. Look at me as if you were looking and speaking with a Vulcan. No Im not delusional and think I actually am. Your reading into me deception and secret motives that dont exist. There is no emotion or deception here, Im just asking what can be presented in a logical fashion as to why one might deconvert.
Not who deconverted, not why you think they deconverted. Not who is lying and who is not. Simply the argument that swayed them to that position
If people have deconverted based on the reasons dewise suggest concerning creationism, then they did not understand what creation and its primary arguments were
you really need to let it go that I disagree, that is what debating is about, disagreement
just stick to the "argument"
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 2:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 482 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 3:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 469 of 566 (598734)
01-02-2011 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:29 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
dwise1 writes:
What is Christian Doctrine on "lying for the Lord"? Lying is supposed to be wrong, but if it is to aid in "the cause of the Lord" (eg, to gain converts through lies and deception), then is it condoned? I mean, absolute morality is absolute morality, but isn't "lying for the Lord" a case of the ends justifying the means (AKA, moral relativism)?
so, i can't comment on christian doctrine among fundamentalists, as they really don't have any clear doctrine to speak of. but i can elucidate this point perhaps with jewish doctrine.
quote:
And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife: 'Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: This is his wife; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.' (Genesis 12:11-13)
so, granted, this is before the law, and is perhaps part of the general period of amorality that necessitates a clear and pre-agreed-upon system of law. but this the general jewish exception for the prohibition on bearing false witness. the logic goes like this: you're a jew, living in 1940's germany. you're hiding several more jews in your attic. when the gestapo comes around, asking if anyone's seen any jews, you have two choices:
  1. tell them the truth. you are your family will be killed in a concentration camp
  2. lie to them. you and your family will live another day, and you will have protected the lives of innocent people
which is the more moral course of action? generally, moral people, in this instance, will state that lying is perfectly okay. if it is to save your own life, or the lives of others, a lie is generally a small thing in comparison to the greater harm caused by the truth.
this is could be what christians think they are doing when they "lie for jesus". perhaps they think they are protecting your immortal soul from the gestapos of satan. of course, this is not clear in any way, as christians generally do not feel that denying your faith when faced with certain death is at all acceptable.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:29 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:56 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 486 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 3:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 470 of 566 (598735)
01-02-2011 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:39 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
aw Jeebus! What a frakin' idiot!
Instead of sticking to the topic of the reasons for deconversion, you keep pulling it off into arguments over Isaiha and other arguments over prophecies and inspiration, etc. None of which has anything to do with deconversion.
Please get a frakin' clue!
Let me guess, your drinking right about this point arent you Son? be honest
Your right Son its not about Deconversion specifically, it ABOUT THE ARGUMENT ONE USES TO DECONVERT, which would include
the things we have been discussing
Please tell me your really not that ignorant, to not see that point
WoW. Be honest your smashed right now, arent you?
Dawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 471 of 566 (598736)
01-02-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 2:51 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
which is the more moral course of action? generally, moral people, in this instance, will state that lying is perfectly okay. if it is to save your own life, or the lives of others, a lie is generally a small thing in comparison to the greater harm caused by the truth.
it is never right to lie, in any situation, it is a moral incorrectness, even in rahabs case.
I would lie in those situations to save another life, but my actions dont make it moral or right
If it did, anyone could justify any situation in thier own mind, in which case there would be no reason it would ever be wrong
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 2:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 472 of 566 (598737)
01-02-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 2:31 AM


Re: other scriptures
As I pointed out earlier, most people that deconvert dont have a firm foundation, they dont even understand basics, so the slightest wind would uproot thier shallow roots system
And yet you have produced a great deal of wind and not noticeably changed anyone's beliefs.
Maybe you should give up on the wind and try some arguments with substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 3:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 473 of 566 (598738)
01-02-2011 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by dwise1
01-01-2011 9:53 PM


Re: other scriptures
You will also notice that one of the first things I tried to do in this topic was to call for agreeing to definitions of our terminology, including what is meant by deconversion.
So here you have tried to apply your own private definitions of the terminology being used. This might serve as an object lesson in the importance of agreeing upon terminology. Duh? But will you learn that lesson? Of course not! Your kind of dishonest dealings depends heavily on such semantic trickery and the confusion that it causes.
}
We all know what deconversion means dewise. Its not about the term specifically but the reason/s that anyone might offer, set out logically, to that deconversion
why is that so hard to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2011 9:53 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 474 of 566 (598739)
01-02-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2011 2:59 AM


Re: other scriptures
And yet you have produced a great deal of wind and not noticeably changed anyone's beliefs.
Maybe you should give up on the wind and try some arguments with substance.
Iano, Jaywill, Buzzsaw, John10, Bertot and last but certainly not least ICANT. Which of these peoples views have you or the other skeptics here, changed?
Disagreement doesnt equal misunderstanding.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2011 2:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 496 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2011 4:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 475 of 566 (598740)
01-02-2011 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 2:47 AM


highly illogical
Dawn Bertot writes:
because its the rational way to proceed
no, it absolutely is not. it is only the natural way to proceed if you are trying to maintain your internal lies. you want to argue your positions because it makes them seem stronger to you.
let me help you here. Look at me as if you were looking and speaking with a Vulcan.
ponfo miran, nirak.
No Im not delusional and think I actually am. Your reading into me deception and secret motives that dont exist. There is no emotion or deception here, Im just asking what can be presented in a logical fashion as to why one might deconvert.
a priori assumptions about divine inspiration that have yet to be demonstrated and conflict with the given facts is highly illogical.
Not who deconverted, not why you think they deconverted. Not who is lying and who is not. Simply the argument that swayed them to that position
requesting negative arguments and then invalidating them because they do not assume the affirmative is highly illogical.
If people have deconverted based on the reasons dewise suggest concerning creationism, then they did not understand what creation and its primary arguments were
assuming that your demonstrably incorrect interpretation of creationism is correct, contrary to the objective facts, is highly illogical.
assuming that any negative interpretation must be a misunderstanding, contrary to the objective facts, is highly illogical.
you really need to let it go that I disagree, that is what debating is about, disagreement
stating that someone must convince you, personally, but then that they must accept your disagreement, is highly illogical.
critiquing someone's disagreement with you in the same sentence as requiring it is highly illogical
just stick to the "argument"
asking someone to stick to an argument you just told them to drop is highly illogical.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 3:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 476 of 566 (598741)
01-02-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 2:56 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
Dawn Bertot writes:
I would lie in those situations to save another life, but my actions dont make it moral or right
protecting innocent people is not moral?
If it did, anyone could justify any situation in thier own mind, in which case there would be no reason it would ever be wrong
doesn't follow.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 477 of 566 (598742)
01-02-2011 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 2:36 AM


Re: liars, or lied to?
Aye. They are more victims than anything else. However, once they have learned that what they are saying are lies and yet they continue to use them ... . At what point do we stop saying that they are themselves victims and that they should now know better?
in any case, you can pretty clearly see how dawn is doing that very thing in this thread. why else would a valid, supportable reason to "deconvert" have to be personal to dawn, such that we should convince him?
Yes, I do see that. I have often viewed fundamentalist Christian mentality as having been arrested. Eg, obviously, their rules-based morality, which is normally outgrown before age 10. There's another stage of development in which a child before a certain tender age, about 5 years I think, cannot distinguish between its own thoughts and the thoughts of another; ie, if the young child knows something (eg, what the puppet is seeking is hidden under the teacup) then the other person must know it as well. There is a stage of development where the child comes to realize that other people are indeed different and know and think things differently than the child does. Apparently, Dawn has regressed back from that stage of development and believes that everybody has the same beliefs as he does.
Our church has (or had) an actual adult RE course called, "Building Your Own Theology." And a fundamentalist friend at work has verified that this is also true for them. Everybody builds his own theology and it is that theology upon which he bases his beliefs and his religious actions. Furthermore (my own thoughts here), while one may try to pattern one's own theology on some kind of standard theology, all that one may accomplish is an approximation, one's own misunderstanding of that theology. Furthermore, since the theology being emulated is that which has been presented by a teacher or an author, we have that each such approximation is itself trying to emulate another emulation, which was an approximation of another emulation, etc for millenia.
Dawn's own theology, which he apparently believes is perfect, is instead his own imperfect misunderstanding of what he thought he was trying to emulate. And it appears that he has no idea that it is only one of billions of different Christian theologies that have existed. He appears to believe that his theology is the only one that could exist. Such that only something that would show that his own theology is wrong could possibly be a valid reason for deconversion.
In fact, anything that would show anybody's theology to be wrong or unworkable would be a valid reason for deconversion. A very simple example would be one whose theology had incorporated "creation science" (note for Dawn: refer to Message 451 for the actual definition of "creation science", not your own personal fracked-up re-definition), such that realizing that those "creation science" claims are lies would be valid reasons for deconversion.
But apparently Dawn's development is arrested at the point that he thinks that only his own personal theology exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 2:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:30 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 481 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 3:31 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 478 of 566 (598743)
01-02-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 3:07 AM


there's a thread about people who have been convinced, you know
Dawn Bertot writes:
Iano, Jaywill, Buzzsaw, John10, Bertot and last but certainly not least ICANT. Which of these peoples views have you or the other skeptics here, changed?
i've had the opportunity to see a few viewpoints change here, over the course of the last six years. i believe phat is one of the most notable examples. there are a few others, of course.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 3:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 479 of 566 (598744)
01-02-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 3:09 AM


Re: highly illogical
a priori assumptions about divine inspiration that have yet to be demonstrated and conflict with the given facts is highly illogical.
Wow you really dont get this do you? We were looking at the same text, which clearly included the example of inspiration as much as prophecy
Now according to your own rules, looking stickly at the text, how could i be ASSUME what is there and the rules you use to establish things just from the text
I did not assume inspiration any more than you assumed your interpretation of that text
from a biblical perspective, what known facts would inspiration conflict with in the Bible or Isa
What are you smoking dude
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 3:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 480 of 566 (598745)
01-02-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by dwise1
01-02-2011 3:13 AM


Re: liars, or lied to?
dwise1 writes:
I have often viewed fundamentalist Christian mentality as having been arrested. Eg, obviously, their rules-based morality, which is normally outgrown before age 10.
the truly ironic part of all this is that christianity is a religion specifically designed to cut through the rules-based nonsense of some forms of orthodox judaism. christ even goes to great lengths to explain how some of those rules are just plain dumb.
quote:
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? (Matthew 12:10-11)
breaking the sabbath was a pretty big deal. the torah commands death. that's the rule... but there are clearly exceptions, based on moral and logical reasoning. (don't even get me started on sabbath elevators)
Dawn's own theology, which he apparently believes is perfect, is instead his own imperfect misunderstanding of what he thought he was trying to emulate. And it appears that he has no idea that it is only one of billions of different Christian theologies that have existed. He appears to believe that his theology is the only one that could exist.
perhaps. however,
Such that only something that would show that his own theology is wrong could possibly be a valid reason for deconversion.
i don't see that. that presumes that he could even accept for a moment that his theology might be wrong. there can be no other theologies, because his has to be right.
In fact, anything that would show anybody's theology to be wrong or unworkable would be a valid reason for deconversion. A very simple example would be one whose theology had incorporated "creation science" (note for Dawn: refer to Message 451 for the actual definition of "creation science", not your own personal fracked-up re-definition), such that realizing that those "creation science" claims are lies would be valid reasons for deconversion.
i am also not sure about that. it would certainly be reason to think that their theology is quite wrong, but that might not necessarily go so far as abandoning faith altogether. while a lot of people bundle the two up, i do not think it is necessarily so. just... very persuasive.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 3:13 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024