[QUOTE=Voyager]
What’s that verse about the beam in your own eye again?
[/QUOTE]
That’s funny. So what do you want me to do? Ignore scientific DNA that goes against the Book of Mormon’s teachings for fear of appearing judgemental?
Right… I like to keep things simple.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
That’s funny. So what do you want me to do? Ignore scientific DNA that goes against the Book of Mormon’s teachings for fear of appearing judgemental?
[/QUOTE]
Well, you are ignoring the scientific conclusion that when somebody dies, they don’t get up and walk around again a few days later. And probably also issues about the walkable rigidity of the surface tension of water, and the law of conservation of loaves and fishes. The way I figure, if you can ignore all that, you can ignore anything.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
That’s amusing how you think God, the author of life, creater of the universe, doesn’t have the ‘right’ to make laws. 
[/QUOTE]
And how would any of that give him the right to decree laws ?
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Come now, let’s not get carried away. There is a continuum of silliness here despite the race being pretty close in most cases - I think that scientology, with it’s planes in space, is currently in the lead.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t find that any sillier than Christianity. Less, if anything; “planes in space” may be wildly implausible, but it’s not outright incoherent gibberish like “God is love”.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
People view God differently. He’s still one God, and maybe we’ve all got him all wrong
[/QUOTE]
According to you. How do you know there’s only one God ? Here is the sum total of what you actually know about God : zip. Which, among other things, means there’s nothing to choose in terms of validity between religions; they are ALL wild guesses. So no, Mormonism isn’t any sillier than Catholicism or whatever.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Right… I like to keep things simple.
[/QUOTE]
Then you should reject all religion. It’s an unnecessary, unfounded elaboration which explains nothing. Occam’s Razor is one of the reasons for being atheist; God is an “unnecessary entity”.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Well, you are ignoring the scientific conclusion that when somebody dies, they don’t get up and walk around again a few days later. And probably also issues about the walkable rigidity of the surface tension of water, and the law of conservation of loaves and fishes. The way I figure, if you can ignore all that, you can ignore anything.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a big difference between Christ walking on water or Christ dying on the cross and ressurecting from the dead (which is the act of redemption), all miracles of God and claiming that Isralis traveled across the world to central america, and that these same Israli’s are the ancestors of native americans when dna proves the native american’s ancestors crossed the bering strait from russia to alaska to the americas…
Regardless, miracles to a non believer are not real. So no matter what I say, you will dismiss. I’m wasting my time. I don’t expect you to understand.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And how would any of that give him the right to decree laws ?
[/QUOTE]
As the author of life, the creator of mankind, God has a right to command a certain moral and ethical behavior from his creation - for the sake of universal order. And as a creature of God who has given you a free will, you have a right to follow his laws or reject God and his laws. It’s your choice.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
There’s a big difference between Christ walking on water or Christ dying on the cross and ressurecting from the dead (which is the act of redemption), all miracles of God and claiming that Isralis traveled across the world to central america, and that these same Israli’s are the ancestors of native americans when dna proves the native american’s ancestors crossed the bering strait from russia to alaska to the americas…
[/QUOTE]
Right - any fool in any era knows that the ‘miracles’ are impossible without assuming magic, whereas it takes scientific knowledge that was not available to people at the dawn of Mormonism to require heavenly intervention to salvage the BOM.
I concede that the miracles attributed to Jesus by the bible are different in that they explicitly claim to be magic, whereas the mystical shifting DNA of the BoM is more of an …unexpected ‘miracle’. In that way, the origin myth of the BoM is more like the much-disproven christian creation myth than it is like the jesus miracles. This doesn’t make the jesus miracles any less implausible, of course; they’re just a different type of implausibility.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Regardless, miracles to a non believer are not real. So no matter what I say, you will dismiss. I’m wasting my time. I don’t expect you to understand.
[/QUOTE]
I would understand perfectly if I knew whether you are equally troubled by all the bits of the bible which had been proven false, like the creation myth, the noah story, the and spectacularly upheaving census set at Jesus’s birth; also whether you find all the deliberate miracles presented in the BoM to be as credible as those in the Bible.
If not, then it’s simple: You like your fiction book, and so are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. You don’t like their fiction book and so are less willing to deny the DNA evidence or cry ‘miracle’ on their behalf.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
As the author of life, the creator of mankind, God has a right to command a certain moral and ethical behavior from his creation - for the sake of universal order.
[/QUOTE]
No, he doesn’t. The religious like to assert this, but they have no good reason for it.
And since you’ve brought up religious books and the believability/accuracy thereof; we are, if anything morally superior to the God of the Bible, which is one more reason he hasn’t the right to tell us to do anything. And all the actual evidence is that we were NOT created by God, but created by ourselves.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
What are you asking, that all people believe as one? That’s not realistic.
[/quote]
It’s not? With rare exceptions, humans have one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes… There is an extreemely consistent physical template in place. Is the that work of God? Why can’t there be an similarly consistent mental templatet in place? God is lazy? For that matter, why are there physical exceptions? God’s design is flawed?
Arguments that assume the existence of God but also try to rate things based on how “realistic” they are contain a major self-contradiction.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
If not, then it’s simple: You like your fiction book, and so are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. You don’t like their fiction book and so are less willing to deny the DNA evidence or cry ‘miracle’ on their behalf.
[/QUOTE]
You’re comparing apples and oranges. For the Book of Mormon to claim that Israli’s traveled to the Americas and indeed are the ancestors of native americans, then being proven wrong through dna testing has nothing to do with miracles.
Their claim of Israli’s traveling to America is hardly claiming a miracle. The fact that they are claiming this as truth is scientificly incorrect. It just never happened. There’s absolutely no historical proof of this either; of the people they claimed to exist who were destroyed and so on.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
It’s not? With rare exceptions, humans have one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes… There is an extreemely consistent physical template in place. Is the that work of God? Why can’t there be an similarly consistent mental templatet in place? God is lazy? For that matter, why are there physical exceptions? God’s design is flawed?
Arguments that assume the existence of God but also try to rate things based on how “realistic” they are contain a major self-contradiction.
[/QUOTE]
You’re comparing physical with spiritual and it just doesn’t work that way. You cannot control the numerous perceptions of God by mankind to anything concrete. Although it’s disappointing for you, there is no mental template in place. People tend to judge others or percieve God based on their own character. You think God is lazy and flawed because mankind does not have a consistent mental template in place to describe him. And you seem to need this template to visualize God. I think God’s mind is so vast that there is no template big enough to fit his awesome greatness.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Although it’s disappointing for you
[/QUOTE]
You assume a great deal. I wasn’t looking for God and was unable to find him, I’m looking for a religious follower that has an insight I couldn’t just as easily generate from fortune-cookie scripts. Since I wasn’t expecting much, it can’t be considered a disappointment.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
You’re comparing apples and oranges. For the Book of Mormon to claim that Israli’s traveled to the Americas and indeed are the ancestors of native americans, then being proven wrong through dna testing has nothing to do with miracles.
Their claim of Israli’s traveling to America is hardly claiming a miracle. The fact that they are claiming this as truth is scientificly incorrect. It just never happened. There’s absolutely no historical proof of this either; of the people they claimed to exist who were destroyed and so on.
[/QUOTE]
And there’s no proof that any of the miracles described in the Bible actually happened, either. Including the spectacular ones that would have been mentioned elsewhere - if they were anything but lies.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
I think God’s mind is so vast that there is no template big enough to fit his awesome greatness.
[/QUOTE]
And I think God is nothing but a levitating walnut, and all other claims or visions of him are false; believing in them will cause your soul to be devoured by squirrels for eternity. A view which has just as much evidence as yours.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
That’s funny. So what do you want me to do? Ignore scientific DNA that goes against the Book of Mormon’s teachings for fear of appearing judgemental?
[/QUOTE]
No. You might consider that your own beliefs are just as nonsensical as those you laugh at. The ones I grew up with also, just to be fair. But I figured that out.
It’s not hard, to paraphrase John Prine, to see the absurdity of someone else’s God.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And there’s no proof that any of the miracles described in the Bible actually happened, either. Including the spectacular ones that would have been mentioned elsewhere - if they were anything but lies.
[/QUOTE]
And oddly enough, the people living there at the time were oddly unimpressed by these supposed miracles. Either these things were so common that no one thought to write them down, or they didn’t happen.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - unless the evidence is supposed to be so overwhelming that no one can ignore it.
I think Johnnie is a classic illustration of the “we’re all atheists, but we just believe in one less god than you” saying.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
And oddly enough, the people living there at the time were oddly unimpressed by these supposed miracles. Either these things were so common that no one thought to write them down, or they didn’t happen.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve often wondered about Exodus 7: 10-12
The Egyptian sorcerers could turn staffs to snakes, albeit weak ones? Impressive. We can’t even do that now with our “science” stuff. This clearly demonstrates sources of magic independent of God, presumably the “other gods” mentioned in the Commandments, and puts to rest any notion that God is unique.
I wasn’t online at all yesterday and I haven’t really been able to digest everything that’s been posted in the mean time. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the discussion would turn nasty, but it does make it difficult to find the lotus in the septic pond.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
“Stupid” is not the same as “meaningless”.
<snip>
Rather than my actual answers. It seems to me you grabbed at the parentheses with open arms, so you could be dismissive.
[/quote]
Dismissive… good choice of terms.
You’re opening statement is dismissive, your entire post is thought-free, arrogant and meant only as an insult and a self aggrandizing declaration that — despite the stupidity of the “game” — you are the winner.
It is completely within my rights as a member of this message board to to use the ignore function. I do not choose to do so, and there is nothing in your style or content that would lead me to do so.
However, you have no right to stalk me through this thread spouting thinly veiled accusations of trolling and demanding that I address your meager, witless observations and confrontational rhetoric.
:::: phew ::::
When I started this thread, it was mostly a way of accepting the idea that atheism causes the negative consequences implied by the linked OP rather then trying to “prove” that atheism is not some kind of pernicious disease. In the same sense that I do not believe that it is logically possible to disprove the existence of God, it seems fruitless to try to argue against the idea that God acts as some sort of unseen periapt against the psychological and emotional snares of human life.
In other words, I wasn’t interested in reexamining the question of whether there is a God and, if so, what the attributes of that God are, but instead, assuming that the construct and the very idea of God could act as a curative for the more traumatic aspects of human interaction, does God make sense regardless of whether you believe.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I’ve often wondered about Exodus 7: 10-12
The Egyptian sorcerers could turn staffs to snakes, albeit weak ones? Impressive. We can’t even do that now with our “science” stuff. This clearly demonstrates sources of magic independent of God, presumably the “other gods” mentioned in the Commandments, and puts to rest any notion that God is unique.
[/QUOTE]
In one of those crappy History channel “documentaries” on the Exodus they had a present day Egyptian magician do the rod into a snake trick - so the passage might have been referring to magic tricks known at the time it was written. However the passage shows that even nonbelievers were considered to have real supernatural powers - which indicates that the authors of the Bible had a level of skepticism at par with your average Natural Enquirer reader.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
In other words, I wasn’t interested in reexamining the question of whether there is a God and, if so, what the attributes of that God are, but instead, assuming that the construct and the very idea of God could act as a curative for the more traumatic aspects of human interaction, does God make sense regardless of whether you believe.
[/QUOTE]
Um, why? Why would turning to a made up, even if believable, being be better than facing reality and dealing with in a healthy manner? How would that be any better, or make any more sense, than a person having an invisible friend?
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
Dismissive… good choice of terms.
[/QUOTE]
If the shoe fits…
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
You’re opening statement is dismissive, your entire post is thought-free, arrogant and meant only as an insult and a self aggrandizing declaration that — despite the stupidity of the “game” — you are the winner.
[/QUOTE]
Rubbish. Utterly laughable. I answered your questions seriously. Show me what there is “thought-free” or “an insult”. Nor did I declare myself anything. Cite or shut up.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
It is completely within my rights as a member of this message board to to use the ignore function. I do not choose to do so, and there is nothing in your style or content that would lead me to do so.
[/QUOTE]
So why bring it up, then? Do it or don’t - but it’d look mighty cowardly if you give up replying to me.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
However, you have no right to stalk me through this thread spouting thinly veiled accusations of trolling and demanding that I address your meager, witless observations and confrontational rhetoric.
/QUOTE]
I have every right - it’s an open thread, you’re the OP and I’m a respondent. It’s only “stalking” if I follow you into other threads which I’m not about to do (unless this ends in a Pitting). I’m just asking for clarification on an OP. Other comments I make in the thread can do without your input.
And you still haven’t answered my questions, or addressed my reply about Buddhism. Just insulted me repeatedly. So I’ll stick with “not debating in good faith”, and I’ll keep asking for answers. Confrontationally, yeah. since that seems to be the only way to get you to reply to me.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
[/QUOTE]
Rotten apples and rotten oranges wouldn’t have very many similarities, either, beyond being totally worthless.
– Worthless, that is, as foodstuffs. They may still be useful as fertilizer.
If you catch the hint.
(Me again!)