God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
If lack of evidence for God is sufficient for an atheist to claim there are no gods (no religion is correct), how can an atheist criticize Christianity for its lack of evidence, and be consistent?

---

           
The athiest's claim is that:where E = evidence and B = belief"If no evidence then no belief."                             1) ~E ⊃ ~B
Which is equivalent to "If belief, then evidence"       2) B ⊃ E Transposition.
Christians claim to have belief.                              3) B
Therefore, there must be evidence.                 4 ) ∴ E Modus ponensThe christian claim is:"Not evidence and belief"       ~E • B
And that is pretty much the end of it. Now if we merge the two arguments and use the Christian claim as premise #3. Like so:1) ~E ⊃ ~B
2) B ⊃ E Transposition.
3) ~E • BThen seperate #34) ~E Subtraction
5) B SubtractionYou can easily see that premises #1 and #4 give ~B which conflicts with #5.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

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

---

​

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course it's right and proper for there to be follow-up by skeptical scientific scrutiny. This would happen anyway, as the field of study is intrinsically interesting to social scientists of many bents.However, many of the APA's statements were specifically made in response to government THREATS of NON-SCIENTIFIC overview of psychological research. I get this information directly from the APA, by the way (I'm a psychology grad, and a member of the APA came to town to give a talk on the debacle). These goverment actions, by the way, were instigated by radio's self-proclaimed moral watchdog, "Dr." Laura Schlessinger.I'm flabbergasted that you would defend this sort of governmental policing of ideas, and would argue that denouncing a study because of of *possible* disturbing implications of peer-reviewed research is justified. Big into Lysenkoism are you??Here's an account of the APA's predicament, from the APA journal American Psychologist:
| Haverford College
These members of Congress were thus suspicious of
the Association?s scientific credentials and harbored distrust
of?or, at best, unfamiliarity with?the APA?s peer
review system. Skepticism and lack of scientific understanding
led many congressional offices to discount the
assertions of APA staff. To these offices, the only indicator
of the quality of the peer review system was the reputation
of the Association, which was being undermined by the
storm raging around the Rind et al. article.
Given the ever-increasing number of cosponsors for
H. Con. Res. 107 (1999), it was painfully evident by late
May of 1999 that there was little chance of preventing
passage of the congressional resolution. The leaders in this
controversy were determined to see it through to its natural
conclusion?that is, passage of H. Con. Res. 107 in some
form. The only viable option was for the APA to persuade
the sponsors to introduce and support a less extreme substitute
resolution.
With the growing likelihood of the resolution?s passage,
APA staff were concerned that subsequent broader
attacks would ensue, possibly against psychological research
budgets in such federal agencies as the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and
the Department of Defense. It was also feared that the
independence of the APA?s journals? peer review process
was in potential jeopardy. This fear was confirmed in a
conversation Fowler had with Representative Weldon, who
clearly believed that peer review, at least as practiced by
the APA, was an old-boys? ?you scratch my back, and I?ll
scratch yours? network. Representative Weldon elaborated
on the implicit threat in his earlier letter by stating that if
the peer review process continued to allow publication of
articles such as Rind et al., congressional oversight hearings
might be necessary.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

John Smith

---

​

Joseph Smith.

​

quote:

---

here in Vermont

---

​

No, though he was born in Vermont he moved to Palmyra NY at a young age. There was the source of the plates.

​

quote:

---

which he then translated behind a curtain while his wife wrote it down....

---

​

I'm not sure about the curtain part. Also, Oliver Cowdery served as scribe as well.

​

quote:

---

Did anyone else see these slabs?

---

​

Yes. Eleven people actually...

---

Heck thats not too bad for a distant 10 year old memory from history class back in the day....

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Still, you could be a hermit or a fugitive.

---

I doubt I could cut all ties to society. Even so, once a critical number of people becomes hermits and fugitives, the social structure collapses and people start dying. We are simply not built to survive outside a society.

quote:

---

If Christianity theology is correct, is it wrong for God to kill sinners?

---

That is a big if... and you have no evidence, as you keep insisting. Consequently, an enormous moral power can be wielded by anyone who can convince people that he or she speaks for GOD. This is the problem.

quote:

---

No, I'm stating fact.

---

You are stating what you want to believe. Do you know all athiests?

quote:

---

Non-theists only have to live the laws of their country.

---

Really? How is it then that I, a non-theist, disagree?

quote:

---

If I were to say that atheists were "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest" that would be an opinion.

---

Yes, it would. Just like your claims about morality are opinions.

quote:

---

I said "generally". I allow lots of exceptions.

---

hmmm.... I don't believe you. Isn't that what you told me when I said that I am very tolerant of individuals?

quote:

---

Unlike the intolerant claims on your website.

---

And do you really need to have tolerance defined for you again?Lets see. There is a roofing supply house in town. This supply house is run by a man whom we'd probably both label religiously fanatical. Scripture is spray painted on the walls of the store. Religious fliers and books are all over the place. The place is pretty breath-taking actually. It also happens to be the best roofing supply house in town. Do I avoid it because the guy is Christian? Nope. Do I threaten him? Nope. Organize protests? No. And I'd oppose the protests if they were organized. I respect the guys right to push his religion. I buy stuff from him knowing that my money is going to go to his cause. This is tolerance. This is necessary for peaceful cooperative living. But you seem to think it means keeping one's mouth shut.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, you crack me up with your little formulas. I like your example about the roofing company though. A very good example of "tolerance."Thought for the day: materialism precludes free will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
John, you crack me up with your little formulas.

---

Symbolic logic ala Irving M. Copi. It is great fun.

quote:

---

I like your example about the roofing company though. A very good example of "tolerance."

---

Well, that's what tolerance means to me. It is about living together constructively, not about censoring ideas.I have also been working in a Synagog for a couple of months now. I don't go there and hassle people. In fact, if I can catch someone willing to chat, I quiz them on Judaism-- not why do you believe but what do you believe and what's up with the knotted rope around your waist. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

The position of an agnostic is that there is insufficient information to make a decision.

---

Correct so far.

quote:

---

Therefore, it is impossible for an agnostic to claim that a religion is false, because they, by definition, do not know.

---

The Agnostic might also say that nobody has sufficient information to make a descision.

quote:

---

So the agnostic does not know if there is a God or anything about God,

---

Right, and many also believe that nobody knows if there is a God or knows anything about God.

quote:

---

yet they know that all religions are false, and all religions must be false, by definition? That is inconsistent.

---

Is it better if I say "The Agnostic does not accept any religion as true because there is not enough information to evaluate the truth of any religion?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

It most certainly has the ability to spread, but it is actually stronger because it is not based upon what faith you may or may not have.

---

​

That's a valid argument, however humanistic morals are still 'optional', as whether or not you follow them the outcome is still the same.

---

Well, I would rather hang around people who choose to do the good, moral, and just thing simply because it is good, just, and moral than hang around people who seem to think that they would behave completely immorally if they didn't fear punishment in the afterlife.Which group has great moral fiber, do you think?The latter group scares me, frankly; those who say that without church -imposed so-called "absolute morality" they would run amok.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

And your analogy is not like the claim made by religion about God.

---

????

quote:

---

Just like God the money in the bank is not generating any evidence you can detect with the senses. Therefore, if a lack of evidence is sufficient to disbelieve God, then a lack of evidence is sufficient for you to avoid investing in banks. Or else you are inconsistent.

---

Except that I can go to the bank and pull out the money and hold it in my hands. Other people can see it and hold it. Even people who had never seen money before could see it and touch it.You cannot do any of these things with God, so the analogy doesn't work.

As an agnostic, I would say that I do not know if any particular religion or all religions are false or not, although I would say they cannot all be true, since they contradict each other in certain important details (for example, views about Jesus by Jews, Christians, and Muslims). I would say that "faith" is unreasonable. I also think this demand for faith is insidious and often corrupting.But I would say that claims of proof for the existence of God are false. The Catholic church has--or had--as one of its doctrines the idea that the existence of God could be proved by "unaided" Reason. If that were the case there would be no need for faith, but the Catholic church has never worried too much about being consistent.One would think that if one wished to have a religous viewpoint, that at least you would want to limit the assumptions to as few as possible. The Catholic church seems to embrace the opposite view--the more unprovable assumptions the better. They don't call them assumptions though. They call them "mysteries" (for example, the Immaculate Conception). I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

The fact that you cannot even consider the possibility that someone might have been mistreated, even though there are probably thousands of personal stories to that effect out there, is beyond all comprehension.

---

quote:

---

Strawman.

​

I don't reject the possibility. I even admitted that some congregations aren't what they should be.

---

You seriouly downplay any examples I give and always, without fail, provide justification or an excuse for everything the church has ever said or done.

quote:

---

I don't have a vendetta

---

quote:

---

Despite the circumstantial evidence that you do?

---

Yes, despite your persecution complex, I do not have a vendetta. I have lots of problems with the Catholic church, too, and probably know more about it. I just haven't had cause to talk about it as much.

quote:

---

You have a motive, and you admit to spending a disproportionate amount of time researching LDS beliefs, and you spend a disproportionate number of posts debating against LDS theology.

---

You have no idea if the time I have spent researching anything is "disproportionate" so this is a baseless assertion.Perhaps you would like it better if I simply spoke from complete ignorance??Hey, it takes two to tango, baby.

quote:

---

All in all, I think that strongly indicates a vendetta.

---

Sounds like you are annoyed at your church being criticized.Like I said, if you consider that I have a vendetta, it makes it easier for you to ignora and discount my criticisms.

quote:

---

There could be evidence of editing, or not.

---

Such as?Dunno. That's why you need the independent study by experienced historians who don't have a religious agenda to maintain.

quote:

---

All of the temple ceremonies are supposed to be secret.

---

[QUOTE]Sacred, not secret. If they were secret we wouldn't send people knocking on doors trying to get them to qualify to attend the temple. [/B][/QUOTE]http://www.mormonstoday.com/001103/P2Laake01.shtml(emphasis added)"In a tribute to Mormon journalist Deborah Laake, who committed suicide earlier this year, Phoenix journalist Terry Greene Sterling says that Laake blamed her clinical depression on "Mormonism and the men in her life." Laake was the author of the controversial tell-all "Secret Ceremonies," which detailed LDS Temple ceremonies and led to her excommunication from the LDS Church.If the ceremonies weren't secret, then why did putting her experiences of them in a book lead to her excommunication?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

Hmm. Religions claim to know the unknowable. If someone claims to know the unknowable, their claims are not valid.

---

​

And what is it that you define as "unknowable"? Just trying to get a sense of what you're saying here.

---

Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that we can't detect it, so it is effectively and for all practical purposes non-existent.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

Absolutely false. There is a great deal of social pressure to behave in certain ways.

---

quote:

---

But if morals are defined by society then morals are not absolute and can change.

---

Well, yes, but what does this have to do with living in society and the pressures to conform?

quote:

---

For example, in Afghanistan in 1998, it was "moral" to deny women an education.

---

Yes. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.I agree that morality changes all the time, particularly religious morality. My argument is that morality based upon humanistic ideas are less about strict simplistic rules and more about reason and common sense and are very basically concerned with, "live and let live", and, "let's come together for the common good" ideas.

quote:

---

Plus, social pressure is irrelevant if you "sin" in secret. If you evade the law and hide from society then you have no need for morals.

---

Well, that's true, except that in the non-religious view, if what you are doing doesn't hurt anyone, it isn't immoral. Sin is an invented religious tool to keep people in line out of guilt and fear.I would much rather have someone do something purely out of concern for others rather than out of fear of going to hell, or out of trying to get into heaven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Maybe you're reading too much into this.

---

​

Could be. I wonder whenever we get into this debate but I really don't know.

---

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Chara.Gene, I know it is difficult for you to step back and look at things objectively where your religion is concerned. It might very well be impossible for you to be objective at all.However, I examine and pick apart religious practices the same way I pick apart everything else. I have very definite bulldog tendencies but this is the case no matter what the subject. I do not apologize for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
????

---

For an analogy to be valid it has to track the relevant feature of that to which it is supposed to be analogous.Money1) Gene has cash
2) Gene goes to bank
3) Gene deposits money
4) Money is in vault and as such is not directly observable
5) Gene withdraws moneyGod1) hmmmmm.... No one has ever seen God
2) No one has ever seen the supposed bank
3) One has never had God to deposit into the bank which no one has ever seen.
4) God is undetectable. Wow. Got one!!!
5) One cannot test withdraw God from the bank-- ie, one cannot test God.One out of five, gene. That is a pretty bad score.

quote:

---

Just like God the money in the bank is not generating any evidence you can detect with the senses.

---

You are trying to make the whole analogy rest on this one thing. It doesn't. Rather, if you want the analogy to rest on this one thing you have to reformulate it like so:1) Somebody claims that there is money in the bank, but doesn't know who deposited it, or where the bank is located, or how to get the money back out.The fact that money can be shuffled into and out of the bank screws up your analogy. This isn't direct observation, but I never claimed direct observation was necessary. Inference from data is acceptable.

quote:

---

Therefore, if a lack of evidence is sufficient to disbelieve God, then a lack of evidence is sufficient for you to avoid investing in banks. Or else you are inconsistent.

---

There is no lack of evidence. The existence of the money can be inferred. I'd accept this with God as well.

quote:

---

That sounds tautological to me.

---

It is. All definitions are. [quote](From Merriam-Webster OnLine, Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary )reasonable: being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive [/b][/quote]

​

You are really going to claim that unfounded assertions are reasonable.

​

quote:

---

I see nothing "extreme" or "excessive" about a rock sitting in that box.

---

​

There isn't anything extreme or excessive about a rock sitting in that box. But the statement, based on no evidence, THAT a rock is sitting in that box, is unreasonable. How can it be REASONABLE when there is NO REASON for the claim?

​

quote:

---

Therefore I disagree with "unfounded"="unreasonable".

---

​

Reasonable == having reason
Unfounded == not having foundations-- IE, not having REASONS

​

quote:

---

If I hadn't been outside yet today and I guessed the sun were up by now that guess would be unfounded by observation.

---

​

But could be inferred.

​

quote:

---

But it would not be unreasonable.

---

​

Because it could be inferred.

​

quote:

---

Plus it is loaded to call something "reasonable" or "unreasonable" because it is an appeal to your worldview, not to logic.

---

​

Not really. Founded is based on something, unfounded is based on nothing. Based on nothing is having no reasons. Hence, it is unreasonable.

​

------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com