God says this, and God says that

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.

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

quote:

---

You are going to stack my 40 carat diamond up against your God and conclude that my diamond is too extreme?

---

What is 'extreme' and what is not 'extreme' depends on your worldview. Your worldview is peculiar as well (you mistook this observation for an argument from authority last time around). We share the same view of 40 carat diamonds; that they are rare. Most of the world agrees with you. However, we disagree on god(s) being rare. Most of the world's population finds your worldview that there are no god(s) extreme.The reason for this difference of opinion is that we can test the rarity of 40 carat diamonds and not the presence of God. Although I have never claimed that a 40 carat diamond is impossible for you to own, it is improbable. However because we don't have evidence for or against God we cannot make comparable guesses as to the probability of God's existance. We could tally up Christian populations verses other religions, but that really would be an argument from authority.

quote:

---

. As I pointed out above, you can use anything in the example and it works. Use a gumball or a comic book, and the analogy works.

---

If you claimed to have a gumball I wouldn't doubt you at all. In fact I would probably wonder why you went out of your way to say something so irrelevant.Again, this analogy is contingent upon your worldview.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

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.

quote:

---

Bring forth this hard evidence, please.

---

Here, here! I want to see the hard evidence that supports atheism enough to justify your vendetta against theism.Otherwise, you are inconsistent.

quote:

---

It isn't all that hard then is it?

---

That could depend on how creative you are at hand-waving the alleged evidence away.I contend that disbelief in God is non-falsifiable because any evidence of God, even a manifestation of God Himself, can be waved away. (To drugs, altered brain states, etc)[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

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.

---

As I recall, all your sources were either sites dedicated to atheism or ministries dedicated to opposing the LDS Church. Hardly unbiased sources. You said yourself that you could not find any LDS member sites that were critical of the church, and you used that as evidence of brainwashing or something similar. It could just mean there are a lot of happy customers but of course you didn't mention that possibility. Were you able to find middle ground perhaps the debate would have fared better, but you weren't able to find middle ground, were you? Everything was polarized.AND you rejected the official LDS history as unreliable. So I wasn't the only one rejecting sources.

quote:

---

I also know that it has done damage to several families which I personally know.

---

Hence a possible motive for axe-grinding.Oh, by the way: see my recent messages in the "homosexuality" thread, re: use of "so-called".[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

You believe that Government has the right to denounce unpopular scientific findings REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF SAID RESULTS.

---

To denounce something is to claim it has no validilty. Therefore the clause "regardless of the validity" is irrelevant. And you will notice that the APA even called in for independant analysis.

quote:

---

Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know.

---

The position of an agnostic is that there is insufficient information to make a decision. Therefore, it is impossible for an agnostic to claim that a religion is false, because they, by definition, do not know.So the agnostic does not know if there is a God or anything about God, yet they know that all religions are false, and all religions must be false, by definition? That is inconsistent.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Like I said, gene. It isn't that hard then is it?

---

Like I said, John, it depends on how hard you want to not believe. And I'm not going to underestimate your opposition to the very idea there is a God.

quote:

---

You think that belief in God, a "thing not detectable with direct sensory experience" is reasonable.

---

quote:

---

I replace God with ANYTHING else, and you will probably consider the analogy unreasonable.

---

Quite the contrary, I've been making analogies of my own. Money in the bank, the exhibit at the art museum...The problem with both our belief systems is that neither of us have evidence for or against our beliefs. Therefore your war against Christianity simply because it has no evidence is inconsistent. That's the only point I'm out to make.

quote:

---

No, because I can get all of my money out of the bank and hold it in my hands.

---

What happens to the money when it is outside the vault is irrelevant to the analogy. When it is in the vault you cannot detect it with your sensory capability. Does that necessarily mean it does not exist?

quote:

---

I would remain agnostic, then, with regards to what is in the box.

---

But like the empty box theorists here you are arguing with us. Why?
And what basis do you have to argue?

quote:

---

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.

---

And non-theists do the same. John is sitting around arguing with me because he insists that my view of what is in the box is wrong.

quote:

---

How do you know that my invisible unicorns aren't pink if I say they are?

---

Because if it's pink it isn't invisible.

quote:

---

You say that your God is male.

---

Yeah. But some religions believe the primary god(s) are female. What's your point?

quote:

---

If they want to live within a social structure with other people, yes.

---

But they don't have to live in any social structure. Or they could design their own social structure. And even in the current US social structure we cannot agree on what is morally acceptable or not. And besides, if you can elude the law, theoretically an atheist can do whatever he wants. God's law cannot be eluded.Therefore the theist is obligated to follow morals or face justice, the atheist is merely encouraged to have morals and possibly face justice. Or the atheist can just move somewhere where the laws are different.

quote:

---

There is no evidence, BTW, that Christians/religious people behave more morally that non-theists.

---

Bit religious people generally have morals that non-theists do not.

quote:

---

In fact, there is evidence that certain kinds of behavior, like child molestation, is more common among fundamentalist Christians than among the general population.

---

That could be a statistical fluke or cultural problem amongst a sect or in a geographic area where lots of fundamentalists happen to live. You can use statistics to support anything if you're creative enough.

quote:

---

'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.

---

Humanistically based morality is weaker, so that's why it's less dangerous? Interesting...

quote:

---

'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.

---

Humanistically based morality is weaker and it has no bite and no ability to spread, so that's why it's less dangerous? Interesting...

quote:

---

Well, do you have any independent, non-Mormon sources which verify your claims?

---

There weren't any online. It was all too polarized. PBS did a show entitled "American Prophet" which I have not yet seen.

quote:

---

Are every single one of them lying?

---

I'm sure that some members probably resent their leaving, but I've never heard of anyone 'getting in trouble'. What troubles me is that you're insinuating that the church policy is to make people that leave miserable. It's ridiculous.

quote:

---

I also happened to have done the most research into Mormonism compared to other sects.

---

Another sign that you have an axe to grind.

quote:

---

Why should I simply accept that which church people say is true of their church founder as historically-accurate if there isn't any outside verification?

---

What kind of verification? Journal entries? All of these such things are under Church control, so you can do like Nos did and claim we edit everything (a claim that is non-falsifiable). We're fascinated by our own history, of course.