God says this, and God says that

Chara's post has not vanished, if you are refering to the one with the quote from Hebrews. It is message 176 in this thread.

quote:

---

I do not claim that there is evidence that there is no GOD.

---

Good. We've ruled that possibility out. I can only think of two possibilities that remain: (1) Your position is faith-based, just as theism is or (2) for all you know I might be right.If (1) is correct, then you are in no position to ridicule the concept of faith. If (2), you are in no position to rail against my belief system.

quote:

---

I said way back in post #43-- a response to you no less-- that I am technically agnostic.

---

"Technically agnostic". That's odd because an agnostic claims to lack enough evidence to discern whether or not there is a God -- hardly one who could honestly rule out any belief system. That puts you in situation (2) above. Incidentally, I've never encountered anyone who would confess to be an atheist. Even the most violently anti-religious people often claim to be "agnostics". Fundies claim that this is to avoid the social stigmas associated with the title of "atheist".

quote:

---

And now that I understand that being a bigot means "not agreeing with gene" it has kinda lost its bite.

---

You know why I think you're a bigot, and it has nothing to do with you not agreeing with me. A lot of people on this board don't agree with me, but I'm not calling them bigots, because most of them don't call me "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" simply because of my religion.But if it loses its bite, good. Maybe your arguments will improve.

quote:

---

Not to mention that problem you have of doing precisely what you don't want others doing.

---

Likewise. I've called you a bigot and you've called me some other things. We're in the same boat.

quote:

---

You never answered my question. If I attacked the Church of Satan or the KKK, would you object?

---

I see something evil about the KKK but not Christianity. The KKK has a political mandate, the church does not. If you hate minorities you join the KKK. If you believe in God you join a church. There is some difference there, but you don't see it, and your past comments equating the KKK with Christianity have, as far as I'm concerned, permanently destroyed your credibility. If we had an amusing quote of the month on the main page of this site, I think either of those would be shoe-ins, except that they make the whole board look bad.What would drive you to hate Christianity so much I will never know, but I think you've shot yourself in the foot with your Klan remarks.I have to wonder if there is any point in attempting to debate someone that bitter. But perhaps you can support your "agnostic" atheism.

quote:

---

Two wrongs make a right.

---

It was justified.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

Personal attacks are just a sideshow. Maybe I can try to only respond to the core of the argument. But I doubt it will go anywhere.Merriam-Webster OnLine ( Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary ) gives the following definitions:atheist: one who denies the existence of Godagnostic: (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable (2) one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a godFrom A Dictionary of Common Philosophical Terms (Pence, Gregory; McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2000) :agnostic: one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existance of God; one for whom the existance of God is a real, continuing, open question. A doubter of God's existance but not as strong as an atheist.atheist: one who believes God does not exist.Which of these is most consistent with the opposition here? (And I'm not limiting myself to one participant.) Now if one in particular is an agnostic, why is he so convinced that Christianity is invalid?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

quote:

---

(3) My position is based on what information actually exists and not on what information might exist

---

Really? John claims that his position is based upon evidence. So you're once again claiming that you have positive evidence that there is no God? Or that, at least, my religion is false?Plus, you haven't gotten over the assumption you are required to make, that there is no God, because you have no evidence as to whether or not there is a God (if you did, you wouldn't be an agnostic, by definition). You have to depend on faith as much, perhaps more, than I do.

quote:

---

a response to you no less-- that I am technically agnostic. Wanna see?

---

Agnostics, by definition (two of which I have provided above) do not claim to have evidence either way.

quote:

---

More slander, gene? Couldn't resist one more cheap shot? God tell you I hate minorities, because I damn sure didn't?

---

No, that was a rhetorical question. If you like the KKK you wouldn't be comparing Christianity to them, now would you?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

quote:

---

Yes gene, you know the stuff that you smell and touch and taste and hear and see? That stuff?

---

Then, I suppose you have found a way to use the material world to give you insider knowledge of the supernatural world?Perhaps you can clear up how an agnostic that claims to have evidence regarding the existance or non-existance of God is not an internal contradiction?

quote:

---

You BELIEVE this kid is reasonable? Rational? Sensible?

---

My advice would be that you leave the kid alone because you have no evidence against the 'blocks' he uses and there is no way for you to prove him wrong. Therefore, if you were to engage in a debate with this kid it would turn into a shouting match because neither can prove the other wrong. Either is running on faith.But that's all hypothetical because this is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy because we all have experience with Lego blocks because they are a part of our natural, everyday world. Hypothetical God(s) are not. God is more elusive and is not necessarily manifest in our physical world in any obvious way, you have to go looking. That does not necessarily mean that God is not there. A real agnostic would admit that he doesn't know if there is a God or there isn't.You're just like the crowd in the art museum in my earlier analogy. You don't know if the box is really empty any more than anybody else, because if you tried to open it security would escort you out. You're just running on faith like the rest of us, no matter how much you want to look superior to us "stupid" Christians.

quote:

---

Do you know the difference between 'evidence against' and 'no evidence for'?

---

I've made that distinction, because you seem to be struggling to turn "no evidence for" into "evidence against". That's why you called the kid in your analogy "insane", just as you called my beliefs "insane".Basically, it seems that if you cannot collect direct observations of something, it doesn't exist? What happens when I put my money in a bank? When it's in the vault and you're locked outside you can't "smell", "touch", "taste", "hear", or "see" it. Does that mean it ceased to exist?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

quote:

---

What else can I do but start to laugh at this hard-headed repetition?

---

You could provide a definition of agnostic that you find more suitable. Or you could redefine your beliefs.

quote:

---

Doesn't really matter to the analogy.

---

Of course it does. Legos are a part of our naturalistic world. We're quite familiar with them. My problem with your analogy is that you've tried to make belief in God analagous to something that, on the surface, seems ridiculous. Just as your problem with my analogy is that it makes your assumption that what you cannot detect with your sense does not exist ridiculous.Let me ask again. Does not detecting something mean that that something does not exist?

quote:

---

You may claim that I don't know. Fine. Never claimed differently.

---

But you are claiming to know what is inside that box. Or more to the point, you are claiming to know what is not inside the box. You do that whenever you claim that Christianity is invalid. I'm merely asking you to support your beliefs.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-14-2002]

quote:

---

I claim that it is silly to argue based upon what is in the box when one has no way of finding out what is in the box and no way

---

I agree. Why then, do you argue that the box is empty?Or that, (if it better describes your position) the Judeo-Christian God isn't in there?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2002]

quote:

---

There are perfectly good analogies that have gone unanswered. For example, why don't you explain why that kid advocating invisible blocks is not like you advocating an invisible God?

---

Lego blocks are defined as small solid objects children play with. Invisible, untouchable Lego blocks are an internal contridiction.The analogy is a poor one because you are deliberately attempting to form a contradiction that seems, on the surface, ridiculous. But to millions of people God is not ridiculous, and therefore is better reflected by the box analogy, which you have not covered to my satisfaction and is every bit as good an analogy and is reasonable.Plus, you ignored a couple of other points. How can you claim to be an agnostic if your beliefs are based on any kind of information? Agnostics, by definition don't claim any information. This claim of information can be found in #199 and #194.Also, if you are a true agnostic, how do you claim to know that Christianity is invalid? I brought this up in #192 and #189. I also included two different definitions of "agnostic" and have asked if you would prefer to suggest an alternative definition that better fits you.In message #204 you said this:

quote:

---

I claim that it is silly to argue based upon what is in the box when one has no way of finding out what is in the box and no way, even, of determining IF there is a box at all.

---

If it is "silly" to argue what is in the box, why are you arguing with me now?By the way, I still don't see a problem with the bank analogy. Like the money in the vault, you cannot test God. But just because you cannot perceive God with your senses does not imply there is no God.

quote:

---

The money analogy is invalid since it involves only perceptual objects and no untestable objects at all.

---

Money in the bank is non-perceptual and untestable.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

atheist/agnostics for some reason don't have to provide evidence of their faith.

---

I don't understand why this point is so difficult. I could sum it up in three sentences. If a lack of sensory evidence in favor of God is sufficient for not only an agnostic position, but "justify" an atheistic position and actively oppose religion, how can the atheist use a lack evidence in arguments against Christianity? It is inconsistent.

John goes out of his way to make his analogies extreme, as if belief in God is as extreme as a pet velociraptor (PE's analogy actually) or a 40 carot diamond.Think these out. Why is a pet velociraptor or a 40 carot diamond so extreme? Because both velociraptors and diamonds are physical, tangible entitities which are testable. If velociraptors were still around we would almost certainly know it. And in that case, the pet raptor would not be an extreme example. If we had nanotechnology, and I could have a kitchen countertop appliance produce a 40 carot diamond to my specifications anytime I wanted, then the diamond example would not be such a good analogy for him to use. But we know diamonds are not that common.We don't know about the existance of God in such a way. God is like the money in the vault and the piece of art in the box, His existance or non-existance cannot be examined like either of the above.The only really valid analogy he has produced is the Lego analogy, and even then he went out of his way to make it rather strange. The fact of the matter is, that as Sagan said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You cannot go around assuming that something does not exist simply because it cannot be tested. Radio waves and black holes are excellent real-word analogies, and they are discussed in science, no less.

quote:

---

But one of your churche's main activities is sending missionaries all over the world to try to convince people of other religions to convert to Mormonism!

---

One of the problems with being LDS is that I take a lot of heat for it. Turns out that quite a few participants seem to have an axe to grind with "Mormons" and Schrafinator seems to be one of them. I wonder if I should have just allowed her to make offensive comments about my church and never admit to being a "Mormon"? Probably.Schrafinator: if you reread my post you will see that I said that I personally do not spend time trying to convert anyone of different religions. When I serve my mission that will change, though whether I spend whether my time with non-Christians will depend on where in the world I am assigned. And then I will be attempting to teach by the Holy Spirit, which is impossible to do through the Internet.I hope that after a two year absence this board will (1) still be here and (2) participation will still be worthwhile.

quote:

---

Do you agree that this IS an inappropriate and bizzare thing for Congress to do

---

No I certainly do not. If the results of a scientific survey implied that we should institute forced sterilization of people with poor genes, would it be inappropriate for Congress to dismiss those results? You bet it would!Define what is and is not 'ethical' while you're at it. You speak as if everyone could agree on what is ethical.

quote:

---

At least gene has been man enough to drop the subject, without admitting the error.

---

Actually John, I was willing to let it go as it distracted from the point at hand. However, if you and Allison prefer to continue talking about it, I am perfectly willing to bring the subject back up.Look, John is mad because Congress ignored a suggestion to legalize pedophilia. He wrote about it. Therefore he is encouraging pedophilia. The title of the article is, "Emancipation proclamation for pedophiles".

quote:

---

It's not that I think Christianity is less valid than any other religion, but all religions are invalid.

---

How do you know that all religions are invalid? This is making more assumptions than merely claiming that Christianity is invalid.

quote:

---

We don't know.

---

That's exactly my point. By definition, you don't know. So how do you know that any religion is invalid? You defeat your own argument.

quote:

---

Is my dismissal of giant pink invisible unicorns unreasonable because I hanven't had any direct sensory experience of them?

---

This is one of those analogies I dislike. The problem with analogies dealing with things not detectable with direct sensory experience is that they can be as reasonable or as unreasonable as you make them. When my money is in the bank vault and I'm locked outside I don't have direct sensory verification of it either. Does that necessarily mean that the money does not exist? The museum patrons don't have direct sensory experience with the contents of the box, but that doesn't mean that the 'empty box' theorist necessarily has an advantage over the others (though perhaps he can make a convincing case by speculating upon motives of the artist).By the way your analogy contains an internal contradiction: invisible objects have no color.