God says this, and God says that

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.

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This evidence sadly can still be denied.

---

It isn't all that hard then is it?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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:

---

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:
What is 'extreme' and what is not 'extreme' depends on your worldview.

---

It doesn't matter. My argument doesn't rest on the extreme nature of anything, whatever that thing may be. You are the one who brought that up.

quote:

---

Your worldview is peculiar as well (you mistook this observation for an argument from authority last time around).

---

ummmm.... it is an argument from authority. It rests on the idea that "most people believe.... " How is that not an argument from the authority of public opinion?

quote:

---

We share the same view of 40 carat diamonds; that they are rare.

---

Rare makes no difference. Use a stick of gum instead. Use anything. The object doesn't matter. I just thought it was more convincing, and appropriate, to have someone look for something of value rather than something like a paper football.

quote:

---

The reason for this difference of opinion is that we can test the rarity of 40 carat diamonds and not the presence of God.

---

It doesn't make any difference. The key element is the claim that 1) the diamond or 2) God, exists. It is the claim that is under attack.

quote:

---

Although I have never claimed that a 40 carat diamond is impossible for you to own, it is improbable.

---

Can't argue there. But probability isn't the issue. The issue is the claim that God exists. In that respect, both claims are identical.The inability to even calculate a probability makes the situation worse for God. My diamond analogy is actually slightly weighted towards your side. Even at that, it is pretty obvious that that believing I have a diamond which I refuse to produce is patently absurd.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com