Raf

Expecting a linguist to be able to determine whether someone produces a language during SIT is no different, not even a little, than expecting a doctor to confirm that someone who has been miraculously healed is indeed disease free. If that's not how God works, maybe it should be. I mean, if I have ocular cancer on May 1, and you heal me on May 2, I should show no signs of ocular cancer on May 10. Now, I know that sounds an awful lot like getting someone smarter than I am to verify the evidence. But shoot, you make a testable claim, you should look forward to the opportunity to test it with enthusiasm. Instead you make excuses and by this point, it's becoming transparent AF as to why.

According to... The Bible. Language. According to common sense. According to the Biblical definition of speaking in tongues and reasonable inferences drawn from that definition. You make a testable claim, you're bound by it. That goes for me and for you and for the Bible. Assuming the Bible to be true, SIT produces a language. That's not according to me. that's according to the Bible. So you can try to turn it back to me all you want. You can say that I am requiring something unfair. But all I'm doing (unlike you) is taking the Bible at its word and you at your word. If you're not faking it, you're producing what the Bible says you will produce. The Bible says you will produce a language, according to the Bible. So... what language do you produce? I thought not. This whole "Raf is being unfair by setting arbitrary criteria" trope is really, REALLY old by now. You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself by resurrecting it only to watch it get debunked every single time.

TLC, if you could tell me what number I'm thinking of right now, I would consider that a decent demonstration of word of knowledge. I'll send it to Chockfull in a private message. Chockfull and I are in disagreement, but I trust Chockfull to be honest and not disclose the number to you. So I will send Chockfull the number and you can, by word of knowledge, ask God to tell you what that number is, you tell us, and Chockfull will tell you whether it's right or wrong. Do we have a deal? Oh, word of knowledge doesn't work that way? (Here we go again, folks!) Ok, let's try gifts of healings. You, me and 100 evangelicals on one side, one cancer ward on the other. And... go! Oh, That doesn't work that way either? Shoot. I'm running out of manifestations. Ok, let's try... Look, SIT is a testable claim in a way that word of knowledge is not. TWI sold "word of intuition" as "word of knowledge." And it's selling free vocalization as SIT.

From the Wikipedia page on Cognitive Dissonance (recommended reading, by the way). Emphases are mine: The attempt to eliminate cognitive dissonance by the latter methods was a major TWI tactic. Remember "The Word of God is perfect, so it cannot contradict itself"? Yet, we know the book contradicts itself more than a Washington politician. So what does TWI do? Call them "apparent contradictions." See? That papers over the reality of the contradictions. How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Let's ask Matthew. Three. Let's ask Mark. Three. Let's ask Luke. Three. Let's ask John. Three. Let's ask TWI: SIX! Why? Because the details of the denials differ, and in order for them ALL to be true, there had to be six denials. This is easily resolved by eliminating the phony requirement that the Bible has no contradictions, but we can't have that. So we refute the contradiction and seek moral support from people who share our beliefs. .... To WordWolf's point: I know that not everyone is interested in my personal journey. I shared it in Seeing the Dark because I felt it was in order. I continued it here because I had already opened that door and I thought it would be better to redirect the conversation from other threads where it was being used as a form of ad hominem (rejecting my arguments because I'm the one making them, rather than on the merits of the arguments). I mistakenly thought we could discuss what makes a person an atheist without the kind of dishonest hostility that greeted me from post 2. You will observe, I think, a decent amount of time between the first post and my second. That was deliberate. If there was no interest in the discussion, I was prepared to drop it, just as I dropped multiple subjects in this forum before that troll decided to come along and malign my character.

Ok, I'll bite. Listen, listing the benefits of SIT without establishing that what you're doing is SIT is your business. I could make a similar list of the benefits of meditation. The benefits of free vocalization. The benefits of sitting in a corner repeatedly running your index finger over your lips and saying "budibbidabubbidadibbidabubbida" until just after midnight, and you may actually EXPERIENCE those benefits. But those benefits don't define what you're doing as a manifestation of the spirit. That doesn't mean you're not experiencing the benefits. But name one benefit that is not subjective, that is not a feeling in your gut, a fire in your belly. Name one benefit that cannot be explained in natural terms. Speaking in tongues is, in the Bible, a manifestation of the spirit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, ... etc. So if you have the spirit and live by it, you should see the benefits of love, joy, peace, etc. in your life. But it doesn't work in reverse. You can have love, joy, peace, patience, etc... and neither have nor claim to have "spirit." So the benefits do not prove anything. More power to you if you experience them. That's great. But we're just not talking about a "manifestation of the spirit." Speaking in tongues. What IS it? Biblically, what are we talking about? Languages. You speak, and a language comes out. You, the speaker, do not understand the language. But it's a language. If it's not, if what you produce is indistinguishable from what I produce when I fake it, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? It's not. It's only distinguishable if we produce different outcomes. I produce sounds that may bear some superficial resemblance to language, while you produce French, Guyanese, Swahili, German, Cantonese. Point is, you don't know it when you're speaking it, but it's a language, every time. Now, when you say you speak in tongues, that is a claim you are making. It is different from the claim I am making about what I produced. So how do we tell a fake from the real thing? The benefits? Nope. We've already established that the benefits can be achieved without the act, so the presence of the benefits do not prove... anything. But, if you claim to be doing something I am not, then you should be producing something I am not. And the Bible tells us what that something is: a language. So, what's the language you're producing? Now, you don't want to go in that direction. Fine. Then, I humbly submit, it's on you to stop arguing the point. Really. Just stop. I have not asked a single person for proof who is not engaging me in this discussion. Every single time you insist you're not faking it, I'm going to ask you to identify the language. "But I get spiritual insight into..." What language do you produce? "But I get a sense of inner peace that..." What language do you produce? "But I experience..." What. Language. Do. You. Produce? Because you can get "spiritual insight," inner peace and all those other wonderful qualities without SIT, and I contend you are. But you can't produce a language without SIT. So what language do you produce? "Well, just because you faked it doesn't mean..." No, you're right. It doesn't. But when I was faking it, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles yay high that I wasn't, that it was real, darnit. That it was the power of God. Because I fooled myself into believing that. And when you fool yourself, it takes an awful lot to admit it. Your unwillingness to admit it is proof of just how much it takes. Why, some of you would rather assassinate my character than admit I've got you pegged. Yes, we can disagree on premises. Sure, the Bible doesn't really mean "languages" when it says "speaking in languages." Tongues of angels is literal. Blah blah blah. Ok. Fine. Whatever you'd like. But in doing so, you concede something significant: You're not producing anything, ANYTHING distinguishable from what I produced when I faked it.

Ok, I've cooled down. I will not be baited by trolls, and will not entertain false Christians who misrepresent the faith by feigning interest but really seeking only to malign others. If you think my admission that I lied about SIT means I lack character, no problem. Your refusal to admit you are still lying about it says more to me about yours. I know, you're not lying. And you're going to prove it by identifying your language, right? I thought not. Now sit down and STFU before aatheist humiliates you by showing he knows more about your holy book than you ever will. The truth is, I came to a series of realizations that led me to the "conclusion" that the God hypothesis is false. You may not agree with me, and I respect that. What I don't respect is anyone's need to be a d*ck about it. I was asked a question about my experience and I answered it in good faith, only to have my inquisitor turn my answer around and twist it into something I never said. MY cognitive dissonance became too much for ME to bear. You may not experience the same issue. You may be able to juggle conflicting thoughts in a way I wasn't. And maybe, possibly, some of you, not all, not even most, but some, are just not intelligent enough to know what all these squiggly lines on the computer mean. They're called words. We use them to communicate. You use them to confound. It's no wonder you're like so confused.

Going to debate whether to continue participating in this thread. I did not anticipate the level of disingenuousness that would be directed at me by someone faking sincere interest in my journey. See you guys soon.

With believers like that, who needs atheists. You do a much more effective job leading people from Christ than I ever will.

Your lack of integrity is on full display, pal. How you could straight up lie about stuff you JUST SAID is astonishing. Past... Document your language yet? I thought not. Know why? You're faking it. I know it and you know it too. That's why my existence bothers you SO much it's practically the only reason you keep showing up here. It's ok, though. Honest. When you admit what we all know, that you're faking it, you'll see that it's a relief. Meantime, to call me dishonest is glaring hypocrisy on your part. I'm done with you. Peace out, troll.

If your faith were strong then you would engage me with integrity. You don't. Therefore it's not. If I were you I would go through at least a six month bible study course so that you could at least have a shot at keeping up with me, Mr. Confused.

I'm not the one following you around insulting you, picking fights with you and maligning your character. I think the fact that I am such a threat to you demonstrates how flimsy your faith is. Otherwise you would engage me in an honest discussion instead of being a rude little pest whose fear of being wrong about God is as transparent as the phony babbling that comes out of his mouth when he speaks in "tongues."

I tried to politely answer his questions, publicly and privately, only to have him distort what I've been trying to communicate using straw man arguments and condescending, holier than thou pronouncements. Dude, you fake tongues as surely as I did. I'm wrong? Fine. Document the language you are producing or STFU. No excuses. Shove your but but buts up yours. You want me to be impressed with your little magic trick: do something I can't. Yeah, I thought not. You know why I think you're faking it? Because you can't produce a language. Not because I games it. BUT because you know damn well you're faking it too. That's why you feel the obsessive need to disparage my character. Because my existence shakes your faith. Pardon me while I search for my give-a-damn.

This is not an honest dialogue, Mr. Confused. You're misrepresenting me, either maliciously or out of profound ignorance and lack of understanding of basic English. I said nothing you allege, and frankly I'm a little sick of trying to explain simple sht to you in plain English only to have you distort it.

This thread continues "Seeing the Dark," but I wanted to kick it off as something new rather than direct new questions to an old thread. A recent post stated that the evidence for Christianity and for atheism hasn't changed, so I must have. I'm paraphrasing. Now, this is of course true. BUT it's also silly. It assumes a static recipient of information who is unable to receive new information or reconsider previously held positions. It's almost like saying, Joe was not a doctor when he was 20. When he was 40, he was a brain surgeon. The information about human anatomy didn't change, so Joe must have. I mean, yeah. He got educated and is now a doctor. I was indoctrinated into Christianity from birth, first by a sincere Jehovah's Witness couple, then by an evangelical friend, then by TWI, then by an offshoot, and finally by a mainstream evangelical church. Not once did any of these folks seriously question the existence of God, and never did I. I doubted evolution no matter how much I learned about it. I believed Genesis and Exodus were history, and that gap theory explained why the earth was so much older than a Biblical calculation would allow. But nobody's perfect, and we all hold views and opinions that conflict with each other. You can smoke as if you're invincible, even though you know how bad it is for you. You may believe in Adam and Eve even though you know enough about science to know the human race was never down to two people. You may believe Exodus really happened and dismiss the fact that the,Egyptian civilization failed to record any of it. The discomfort you feel is called cognitive dissonance. You can deal with it (usually by compartmentalizing the conflicting beliefs) or you can confront it. What Changed Raf? That's easy. In the summer of 2012, after a long slow process of questioning a little bit here and a little bit there, I decided to confront my cognitive dissonance, finally realizing that everything, EVERYTHING made more sense if you remove a God from the equation. To be continued. [This thread was originally titled "What changed Raf" before it was correctly pointed out that one person's journey is not necessarily a proper thread topic].

I stand corrected.

To be clear, as someone who does not believe the Bible and doesn't think this stunt is possible, if you were to SIT and produce a language you had not previously learned, the only problem I would have with the word "impressed" is that it would be a PROFOUND understatement. Free vocalization doesn't impress me. Likewise, chewing gum doesn't impress me. I mean, nothing that anyone can do impresses me.

So. For the curious among us. This thread actually IS about me and my change of heart. So I'd call it fair game. Just sayin.

Big phony.

Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.

Plenty of people believe the Bible is true but modern SIT is not. I am not among them, so it would be dishonest of me to weigh in, except in trying to see what the Bible says on an intellectual level. I'm not averse to that. BUT at that point we're no longer questioning faith and it's a purely doctrinal question. An atheist view, I've found, is not welcome in such discussions.

If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it. I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.

If I'm right, then you need to rethink what Paul meant. If I'm right. Why are you skipping to that part? Why not prove I'm wrong?

Assuming the Bible to be true, no. Maybe he wasn't talking to you. Maybe he was, but you're so enthralled with the counterfeit that you stopped searching for the genuine. Or maybe you're really producing languages but you're so afraid the atheist is right that you won't seek to prove it even though it's a clear promise in the Word.

I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications. It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word. But you don't believe that any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.

I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa. If he meant babble he would have said babble. Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game. To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.