God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

The funny bit is that Gene can criticise an organization he dislikes, but refuses to allow the criticism of organizations he likes.

---

I have to agree.Gene, you do have a tendency to reserve the right to criticize for yourself but object to others doing the same thing when they disagree with you.You did exactly that with Zhimbo in the "state-sponsored terrorism" thread.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

I see something evil about the KKK but not Christianity.The KKK has a political mandate, the church does not.

---

Holy cow, are you actually saying this?Christians most certainly have a political mandate, pushed by many of their churces.The Republican party wouldn't kowtow to their issues so readily otherwise.

quote:

---

If you hate minorities you join the KKK.

---

You have to hate most other religions besides Protestant Christianity, too, to be in the KKK.The people who join the KKK often say they are doing so because they want to promote the white race.

quote:

---

If you believe in God you join a church.

---

...or go to temple (be it Jewish, Hindu, etc.) or a mosque, or you believe in god on your own without organized religion, or whatever.

quote:

---

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.

---

...with you, perhaps, but I can see haw some comparisons could be made.I mean, the KKK does claim to be Christian, and many Christian churches have advocated racism, including your own denomination.

quote:

---

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?

---

I am agnostic and this is the definition I most ascribe to:

quote:

---

agnostic: (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable

---

It's not that I think Christianity is less valid than any other religion, but all religions are invalid.We don't know. That's the end of it.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Theists are constantly told they have to prove God exists, (in the midst of intellectual slander and accusations of foolishness; these things are commonly directed at theists) while atheist/agnostics for some reason don't have to provide evidence of their faith. I can see why he wants you to admit you are arguing from a faith based position, because it levels the playing field. I tend to agree that if you can't prove God does not exist you cannot try and force a theist to prove that he does.

---

Except that the default option of nature is that there is no God.You ADDED a belief in an unseen entity to nature.You are making a claim that this unseen entity exists, so that is why the onus is upon you to provide evidence for said entity's existence.

quote:

---

How do you know those blocks aren't there?

---

Why make the claim that they are there in the first placce if you can't detect them?

quote:

---

Obviously the child can see them.

---

Obviously? People think they see Elvis, too.

quote:

---

Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that those blocks aren't there?

---

I say that there are three invisible pink unicorns that fly around each person's head at all times.Obviously I can see them. (!)Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that these unicorns aren't there?(see the problem? It is up to the claimant to support their claim. Is it reasonable to accept my unicorn claim because we do not have evidence that they do not exist?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

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.

---

I know several people who belive in God who also actively oppose religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
When you have been taught all your life how to avoid belief by avoiding God, how to be cynical, belief in God *can* be very difficult. Eyes clouded and hearts hardened by years of misuse or abuse may not see, feel, or hear clearly enough to believe right away. Part of this is because belief can be very painful -- think of all the years of walled-up pride that must come down for some. How to start believing when your whole ego is built on self-pride and disbelief?

---

How ironic that you characterize non-belivers as prideful and full of ego when your words are so self-righteous and condescending.In my experience, it is Christians who arrogantly think they have all the answers.

quote:

---

This is why prayer is more important than words, only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes and give you hard evidence of God. This evidence sadly can still be denied.

---

Bring forth this hard evidence, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

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.

---

I know that you will probably not believe me, but I do not have an axe to grind regarding Mormonism.You, on the other hand, cannot tolerate any criticism of your religion whatsoever, which is why you have refused to anwer many of my questions and objections regarding it's practices and policies.You rejected each of my source links as biased, yet refused to provide any information or sources critical of LDS which you would approve of.Therefore, my conclusion is that ANY criticism of LDS is unacceptable to you.I think it is a particularly, well, strange, version of Christianity and that it is particularly hypocritical WRT image vs. reality. I also know that it has done damage to several families which I personally know.I have no problem with individual Mormons for being Mormon. I have a problem with the LDS doctrine and practices and use of political power. That you cannot tolerate any criticism of your church without resorting to calling the critic an "axe-grinder" speaks volumes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

I know several people who belive in God who also actively oppose religion.

---

​

That wouldn't be an argument from authority would it? Elaborate how it undermines my position that an atheist with no evidence for his beliefs is in no means superior to a theist with no evidence for his beliefs.

---

I don't make the claim of any group being superior.I was simply pointing out that belief in God and opposition to religion can, and do, go together.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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!

---

NO, that is NOT what happened.The implications of the study were not denounced.The FINDINGS OF THE STUDY were denounced....as if by denouncing them Congress somehow thought that they could make the study any less valid.Scientific findings are what they are, regardless of who denounces them.You believe that Government has the right to denounce unpopular scientific findings REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF SAID RESULTS.That's kind of like denouncing scientific findings because they disagree with the Bible.That is scary, Gene, that you would approve of such Fasist activities. [QUOTE]Define what is and is not 'ethical' while you're at it. You speak as if everyone could agree on what is ethical. [/B][/QUOTE]There are general ethical guidelines which research institutions follow.I was not intending to define what is ethical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

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.

---

Since we don't know, and probably can't know, then pretending to know is not a valid conclusion.Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know. Therefore, religion is not valid. Not any of it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

That's the point. That is EXACTLY the point.You think that belief in God, a "thing not detectable with direct sensory experience" is reasonable.I replace God with ANYTHING else, and you will probably consider the analogy unreasonable.The problem is, the analogy is the same. The thought process is the same.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, because I can get all of my money out of the bank and hold it in my hands. Everyone else in the bank can see all of this money in my hands. I can hand it to the people and they can see and feel and smell it. Someone who had never seen money before could also see and touch it, even though they did not know what it is.

quote:

---

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).

---

I would remain agnostic, then, with regards to what is in the box.Like John says, however, what theists do is make all kinds of assumptions about what is inside the box and live their life based upon these assumptions. [QUOTE]By the way your analogy contains an internal contradiction: invisible objects have no color. [/B][/QUOTE]How do you know that my invisible unicorns aren't pink if I say they are?You say that your God is male.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

Bull. (Strawman)

---

quote:

---

Really? So, you are claiming that the atheist or agnostic is obligated to follow moral codes? How does that work?

---

If they want to live within a social structure with other people, yes.There is no evidence, BTW, that Christians/religious people behave more morally that non-theists.In fact, there is evidence that certain kinds of behavior, like child molestation, is more common among fundamentalist Christians than among the general population.

quote:

---

Besides, moral values prescribed by religions change with the wind.

---

quote:

---

Sour grapes.

---

No, simply the truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Bull. (Strawman)

---

​

Really? So, you are claiming that the atheist or agnostic is obligated to follow moral codes? How does that work?

​

quote:

---

Besides, moral values prescribed by religions change with the wind.

---

​

Sour grapes.

---

Couldn't help notice that you left this part of my message out:'Religiously-based morality seems much more dangerous to me than humanistically-based morality because of this ability to dictate to large groups of people who will accept a moral code in it's entirety.Think "crusades."'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that these unicorns aren't there?

---

Nope. Therefore there is no logical support for disbelief in the unicorns, only pure agnosticism.[/QUOTE]There is no logical support for belief in the unicorns, either.

quote:

---

Therefore, it would be foolish to debate someone who believes in the unicorns for neither side has a claim to logic or evidence.

---

But which view is more reasonable? The view that the unicorns are there, or that they are not there?