Raf

I could be mistaken, but I do believe we are not dealing with people who have no familiarity with the English language. Sorry. Think about it. They have literally sat through hours and hours and hours of information presented in English and translated for them, information that they are religiously interested in. SIT is what, two sentences? If someone told you this story to support Islam you would reject it before they reached the h in Allah. The natural explanations are all more plausible than "they spoke in tongues and it was English." 1. They knew more English than they let on. 2. They practiced, knowing they would be in the USA. 3. Someone's fibbing about the whole story. Knowing nothing else, I think a combination of 1 and 2 fits the facts quite neatly. By the way, whatever happened to "no man understandeth"? Is that only applicable in firsthand situations? Sorry, I had to. I know, I said I'd shut up. But I didn't expect a whole new anecdote when I said that.

And no motive to lie there!

Wait, THEY WERE IN THE ADVANCED CLASS? In Ohio? In... French?

Ok, so some men from Zaire who did not know English were in a believers meeting in the USA, which was in English? And they, not knowing English, spoke in tongues and it was English. And we do not know who these African visitors were or where they are now. Somewhere in the DRC. And we know they didn't know English because why would two foreign born followers of TWI visiting the USA and attending a believers meeting possibly have any prior familiarity with the English language? Got it

I'm not challenging your anecdote. I'm just trying to get it straight so that I understand it properly: Two people who you know // were in a meeting in Zaire// and they saw men who speak French and a native African language.// One of those men spoke in tongues and it was English. And you're no longer in touch with the two people that you know.So I guess it's knew. Have I got that right?

Take the last word: I promise I'll shut up.

Have people and facts attached to them? No, they don't. That's why they're not credible! Who were these people? Where are they now? Hmm? Right. Back to Asia! Come now. As for my blanket claim that everyone faked it: I have provided the mechanism for faking it, which we were all taught, and the motive, which was pure and sincere. I'm willing to accept your sincerity, but you can't reasonable assert that "my claim" is less credible than a series of stories whose principle players have all vanished.

No one said it had to be conscious. Anyway, DRAW! We've been here before. This is where we walked in, remember! Salud! And, on a related note, I mentioned toward the end of the original debates/discussions that I was waiting for the outcome a study of glossolalia that categorized the utterances by phonemic inventory. I haven't brought it up since then because... I'm... still.... waiting.... The last time I checked, in November, there was a possible May publication date. I have no reason at this point to assert with confidence that this will actually take place, but if it does, you'll all be the 3,000th, 3,001st, and 3,002nd to know.

They were rejected because they were not credible. They have as much going for them as ghost stories and urban legends. None of the principle players could be contacted to verify the accounts. And this is the case with every single one of those stories.

1. I couldn't possibly begin to argue with your experience in terms of what I said, but I can approach it with honest questions. Namely, "Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance language." That may be the case, but were they sounds with which you were not familiar? I speak English and some Spanish, but I am aware of phonemes from some other languages (my go-to is the "ch" in Chanukah) and, being aware of such sounds, it would have been easy for me to incorporate them into a tongue. If you're exposed to a phoneme (whether or not you know that's what it's called) then you can incorporate it, QED. 2. You're welcome.

Picking up from previous threads on this (Questioning Faith) forum: Ok, guys, Uncle. Over the last 24 hours I realized there were a BUNCH of posts addressed to me on a handful of threads, and I've tried to answer a bunch of them publicly and privately. But as I keep reading, I keep seeing points I want to address buried in posts that were lengthy to begin with. I'm not deliberately ignoring points, but you guys had what looks like a full day's head start on me. I'm going to try to exercise a little self control by not addressing eVeRyThInG, but if I skipped a point you made and you want me to address it, please feel free to raise it again and I will be more than happy.

Semi-seriously, if God were all-knowing, or even reasonably intelligent, he would have put the tree of knowledge in Australia. The chance of Adam and Eve being tempted would have been eliminated. The story makes no sense!

This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other. Namely: Paul praying privately in tongues DOES NOT "refute the claim" that unless the tongues you speak are understandable by some other person then they aren't real tongues. The claim that speaking in tongues should produce an actual human language is biblically defensible, as I have shown multiple times across multiple threads. In the Bible, tongues ARE languages. They are synonyms. Speaking in languages IS speaking in languages. So if you're not producing a language, you are not speaking in tongues. Paul praying privately DOES NOT NEGATE the fact that he would be producing a language. If Paul said he prayed in tongues privately to God, it follows BY DEFINITION that he prayed to God in a language that he himself did not understand. It's still a language understandable by some other person. So, respectfully, Paul's prayer life does not refute my contention that tongues are languages.

TLC, When you jumped into this conversation (which anyone and everyone is welcome to do), you quoted my previous post. Specifically, you quoted the following: You then went on to cite Romans as a way to establish that God (the Christian God, the God of the Bible) does indeed exist. Never mind that you're using the Bible to prove the Bible (which Waysider accurately pointed out is circular reasoning: it would be like citing the Qu'ran to prove Islam). The real intellectual crime here is that you ripped my original statement from its immediate context. I expect better. Here's the full(er) quote with the preceding line. restored here with emphases added: You see, my statement was about the deist God, not the Christian God. Debunking the Christian God, from my perspective, is boatloads easier than debunking the deist God, because the Christian God makes testable claims that fail. Remember the time Jesus said he would come back before those who heard his voice died? They did, and he didn't. Enter Biblical contortionism to save the day! "Well, he didn't really mean what it looks like he meant. He used air quotes." Remember the time Paul counted himself among those who would be alive when Christ returned? Well, he (Paul) isn't, and he (Jesus) still hasn't. Remember the time God said he flooded the whole earth and saved just one family of 8? Testable claim. Genetic research would reveal a bottleneck. None exists. Because it never happened. Oh, the flood was regional? Then why ask Noah to take 120 years to build an ark when he could have given him six months warning and told him to move to another region? Remember the Exodus? History doesn't. In the USA, we have a story about how we fought for independence from the British. It's an easy story to tell, because it's true. And the more details you seek, the more you find. Which king? George III. What year? 1776. Where? We have precise locations. How does Exodus compare? When did it happen? Well, we're not really sure, historically. Which Pharoah? Funny, the story doesn't actually name the Pharoah. Fine, but SURELY there is evidence of Egypt losing a couple o'million slaves over a shockingly short period of time. Actually, there is no such account in the whole history of Egypt. Well, the Egyptians didn't record that because they were embarrassed. (WTF?) Yeah, the Bible makes all sorts of testable claims about God that fall short once you start looking at them. The deist God? Makes no claims. None. That's why he's impossible to prove or disprove. "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." That's why you constantly hear Christians (and other theists) arguing, well, if there's no God, how do you explain the universe existing? Why is there something rather than nothing? Those are terrific attempts to get an atheist to acknowledge the possibility of a god, but it's a deist god. I could say tomorrow, hey, you know what? I think I believe in the god of deism. And you will still not be even a little closer to defending the existence of the Christian God. Genesis 1? Testable claims that never happened. Exodus? Testable claims that never happened. So I'm left a little frustrated here, in this thread, because I can see that you did not carefully read even the portion of the post that you cited in order to present a verse in Romans to prove a point that, sorry, it simply doesn't prove. And then, when that's pointed out, you come along and post some drivel about allowing the Bible to be its own language, which, on top of making no rhetorical sense, is not anywhere near the topic of this thread. Come on already.

Exactly. Back to topic...

That's Clark, nice.

You give them eyes but they cannot see. Nor can Superman, through lead. Those stories are FICTION. There was no Egyptian captivity. There was no Exodus. There was no parting of the Red Sea. There was no slaughter of all the firstborn of Egypt. Perseus never killed the Gorgon to defeat the Kraken. We are not on the back of a turtle. These are myths! Citing the signs, miracles and wonders of Exodus, Kings and Chronicles is like citing the Simillarion history of Middle Earth to explain why we never see Hobbit footprints. I show unto you a more excellent way.... it never happened.

Thanks. Let me be more clear: your citation of this verse, in the context you present, makes no sense whatsoever at all even a little. You raise this verse to answer a question about the existence of a deist God. This verse dies not address a deist God. Further, this verse cites a subjective experience, not one that can be independently verified by an outside observer. It is therefore, as far as "proof" is concerned, meaningless. Might as well cite Shirley MacLaine's memories of her past lives as evidence of reincarnation.

Would it have been too hard to quote the verse? The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the son's of God. And the burning in the bosom testifies that Mormons are right. In terms of proving anything, this verse not only fails to address (even tangentially) the point I was making, but also fails to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

Would it have been too hard to quote the verse?

A couple of quick points. 1. According to the studies we reviewed and posted together, the phonemic inventory of "tongues" matched the speakers' native languages. This was a big deal to me as it fit neatly with the thesis of this coming from our heads and not God giving the utterance. 2. I don't think I ever said SIT was a major linchpin in my atheism. Quite the opposite: I tried to make it very clear that you could be a strong believer and still recognize that what we were doing was not biblical SIT. Atheism did not enter the equation, nor need it.

You know, the more I look at this post, the more I want to just post a two-word response and be done with it. How dare you, man? I spent 40 years as a Christian, 40 years seeking and praying and teaching and studying. For you to come along based on a thread on a message board and question my character? How DARE you? But I really don't want to lose my cool. So let me refer you to the informal logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman." The "No True Scotsman" fallacy improperly seeks to invalidate the sincerity of a critic's previous experience in a group or belief he now questions or renounces. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/ It goes like this (in context, not using formal formula for logical arguments) A: "I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues." B: Presented with an example of a sincere person seeking God who faked tongues. C: "He must not have been sincere." See how easy it is? Your premise can NEVER be refuted because any time it IS refuted, you can claim the person wasn't sincere and support your premise. News flash: Sincere people who once embraced faith can come to reject it, and if you can't come to terms with that reality, then you'd best not engage me in conversation because I will defend my honor. Seriously, fornicate alone with a cactus if you don't think my Christianity was sincere. That is not for you to judge, and for you to call my character into question is deeply unappreciated.

Anyway, back to topic: I question SIT not merely because I realize I faked it, but because it's a testable claim that no one seems willing to test (and when it is tested, it never passes. I'm not saying it fails, because certain folks won't let me, but it only needs to pass, convincingly, ONE TIME to be credible). It's not that hard to follow.

I never said that. YOU said that I was basing my decision on experiences. You said "The question is what experiences did you have that made you think God existed changed." It had nothing to do with experiences. It had to do with reason. I'm not saying others did not use reason. I'm not saying anything about other people at all.

Outsider test: If I came to you tomorrow and said because I believe in the teachings of Buddha, I can do nine magic tricks, would you believe me?