Website with a VERY lengthy response to the WWGHA video.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Sarcasm is God!!

The only God I know is the Ace of Spades 

[fizixgeek]

Hi AP,
Your question sparks some introspection. Would I be willing to accept my own challenge? I have not, to any great degree, pursued another belief (or non-belief) system. I have read quite a bit, but I wouldn't give you credit for simply having read the Book of Mormon. To what extent would I be willing to follow the tenets of another faith?

My faith allows for quite a bit of truth in other religions. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if Gabriel had appeared to Mohammed or if meditation could expand my connection with the infinite. The cost is very high for me to abandon my faith altogether for the sake of an experiment, so I would be hoping for an incremental path. Maybe that's not possible. I think God provides a fairly incremental path for atheists, though. Read some scripture. I'd recommend 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon or Matthew 5-8 in the Bible. Pray to have the truth of it revealed to you (if it's, in fact, true), then make one change in your life to put your life more in harmony with what you've learned. Would that be so hard? I could do that with Islam or even with atheism. What would I read and how should atheism change my life?

Even more revealing, I will say that I've spent quite a bit of time considering that most frightening of questions: "What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree. But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation. The space for the super-natural does seem to be shrinking. But, I've had a lot of experiences that lead me to conclude that the world is not wholly random. There is someone running all of this. The journey to find Him is clearly a long one.

So, how about you, Ambassador Pony. I think it's fair of me to ask, what's your background? Where did your faith go and do you miss anything about it? How do you make sense to a world with no purpose, or do you find some purpose in all of this? Oh, and what makes you so excited to have a Mormon in the forum?

[Hatter23]

I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else. You will never catch me trying to prove the existence of God in an online forum (or anywhere else). My game plan is this:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.

That is irrelavent until it is consistent with reality. JRR Tolkein strove for consistency in the language of the Elves. Until a veiw is consistent with reality, it is just fantasy.

2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.

Which again is only relavant if you are coming to knowledge of something that exists in the first place. You are simply stating the same question in different language.

The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

I am not asking for a proof, I am asking for evidence. Objective, Unambiguous Evidence. Listen I don't have "proof" that CroMagnum man intermingled with Homo-sapiens. However, there is some very good, objective, unambiguous evidence.

[screwtape]

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.

Why is this relevant?  I've seen numerous theists try to do this, but I don't get the point.  Even if you could do it[1], it does not eshtablish the existence of a god.  It is akin to defending the self-consistency of a wiccan viewpoint or of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.  Who gives a rat's ass?  It looks like a highly masturbatory exercise.

2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.

Does it involve peeping stones in a hat?

The cost is very high for me to abandon my faith altogether for the sake of an experiment,

But the potential reward is so much higher.  It is a version of Pascal's wager. Given all the religions out there, and assuming there is only one right one and also assuming the one you are in is just a random event[2], the probability is you are in the wrong religion.  So you probably have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying out other religions.

"What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree.

Nope.  Quite the opposite actually.  Knowing this is the only life I have, I have to do everything I can to make it the best life possible.  This is not the dress rehersal for something infinitely better.

But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation.

And when do we abandon our belief that a guy with magical lenses translated stories in "Reformed Egyptian" from golden plates he found using a peeping stone?  Just curious.

1.	you cannot
2.	as opposed to you being in it because god lead you to it or because you had excellent objective evidence to join it.

[Ambassador Pony]

Fizix,

I think God provides a fairly incremental path for atheists, though. Read some scripture. I'd recommend 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon or Matthew 5-8 in the Bible. Pray to have the truth of it revealed to you (if it's, in fact, true), then make one change in your life to put your life more in harmony with what you've learned. Would that be so hard? I could do that with Islam or even with atheism. What would I read and how should atheism change my life?

Wow! Zero to preachy in minutes. Cut it out, please. If I feel I need something from your belief system, I will ask. I promise.

I am not interested in getting you to "try atheism". Not my point, sorry if I wasn't clear. I appreciate there is very little I can do to help you out there, given you learning history, anyway.

I was zeroing in (I used zero twice in my post, and I feel dirty) on your implication (I read elsewhere on the forum) that one must believe before one can perceive the spiritual benefits of belief behaviour. I wanted to see if you actually thought that was feasable. You don't seem to believe that, at least at first, it is necessary. Sounds like a very practical gradient instead. "Just read some bible-advice, apply it in your life, and see what happens" to paraphrase.

For me the "see what happens" component is the kicker, as you feel that expectations are necessary as well, going into it. In the pseudo-science of psychology, it is known that expectation is a strong determinant in perception. Tell people who believe in ghosts that your house is haunted, leave them be for a while, and guess what they'll tell you they saw in your house, and believe it wholeheartedly?

I'll ask you later what exactly are the success criteria for the spiritual sort of benefits one gets? What is the objective scale of measurement?     

So, how about you, Ambassador Pony. I think it's fair of me to ask, what's your background? Where did your faith go and do you miss anything about it? How do you make sense to a world with no purpose, or do you find some purpose in all of this? Oh, and what makes you so excited to have a Mormon in the forum?

Lab rats don't ask questions!

My backfround is culturally French-Catholic. In Canada, it used to be that French school was catholic school. As a child, I suppose I had faith, but, as I recall, it was the same kind as a child has in the easter bunny and in santa. It went away not long after santa and EB. I honestly, never bought into any of it. And, I've heard that the catholics were the best at inoctrination and/or destroying cultures that were not the same as them (google: "canada" and "residential schools" for your edification). I think mormons are better at running a religion, BTW.

No, I do not miss any behaviour related to belief without evidence (faith).

At the heart of existence itself, I can only relate my most honest, "I don't know". Being human and in posession of a brain frames purpose perfectly, IMHO. I don't see a need to pile on faulty axioms.

mormons are an exotic species at WWGHA. When you leave, I have to go back to poking mouth-breathing fundy creationists with sticks. No one likes that.

Did I answer your questions?   

 

[Ambassador Pony]

Even more revealing, I will say that I've spent quite a bit of time considering that most frightening of questions: "What if death is the end?" There's something incredibly demotivating about that concept. I think you'll agree. But, it's tempting to follow history to what seems to be its natural conclusion. First, we abandoned our belief that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a boat. Then, we abandoned the idea that demons make our bodies sick. Then we got rid of the notion of a literal 6-day creation. The space for the super-natural does seem to be shrinking. But, I've had a lot of experiences that lead me to conclude that the world is not wholly random. There is someone running all of this. The journey to find Him is clearly a long one.

And, lucky you, the pinnacle just so happens to be the exact religion you were inculcated with because of the place and time you happened to be born in. Please. 

Your learning history stacks the deck, so to say, when it comes to perceiving that "lot of experiences". Your experiences are an inevitable outcome and what would be truly remarkable, is if you never had any. That's how the brain works. 

[fizixgeek]

I knew that would bite me.
You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

I did appreciate Ambassador Pony's personal narrative. What about you screwtape? What was your journey to atheism? How come your not as smart or self-assured as AP?

I think I was misunderstood there. My point is that history seems to lead to atheism. Why wouldn't all religious ideas fall by the wayside the same as Ra, illness as demonic possession and literal 6-day creationism? I helping you out, here.

I don't mind answering questions about Mormonism specifically, but I came with some ideas about theism more generally. screwtape missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate. I'm not attempting to prove that God exists. In my view, that's dumb. I would like to defend the self-consistency of theism to remove that as an obstacle for anyone seeking to learn whether there is a god. I wouldn't expect anyone to go to effort to test a hypothesis that is demonstrably false.

Then, I present an alternate epistemology, that is another method for gaining knowledge, that complements the scientific method. It seems there's a lot of resistance to the idea that there's a method besides the scientific method for learning truth. And who could blame you. It's a great system (just like Newtonian mechanics). But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?

[Omen]

e missed my earlier posts, so I'll reiterate.

No one missed them, you were challenged on the assertions you made and chose to ignore the responses.

You can't reasonably or honestly conduct a discussion on any subject you refuse to support the burden of proof for.  You can't claim to know or say anything as if you were being authoritative about any subject without it.  You are simply operating out of a presuppositional position that all of us reject, because of its grossly ignorant and dishonest nature.  Exactly what I emphasized as unacceptable when you first began posting on this forum and exactly what you began to do.

You might as well be claiming to clarify the positions on leprechauns.

[Hatter23]

Then, I present an alternate epistemology, that is another method for gaining knowledge, that complements the scientific method. It seems there's a lot of resistance to the idea that there's a method besides the scientific method for learning truth. And who could blame you. It's a great system (just like Newtonian mechanics). But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?

I know there are things that are true that cannot be proven by a controlled exiperiment with the means currently available to us.

The God theory is not falsifiable, but ignorable.

Let us say someone has a dream that there is an adanced civilarizion(but not possessing FTL  technology) on the fouth planet around a star that is 9670 light years from earth. They propose it is real, do you "accept this" theory as reasonable? Or would you ignore it as unsupported?

Lets us say the 1200 years from now that we find out that there is actually an advanced civilization on said planet. Yes, the theory was valid, but it was...given the fact it was unsupported and untestable it was still reasonable to ignore it. Certainly it would be unreasonable to change our behavior and expend resources on a welcome center for these aliens in the present time and any proposing to do so is foolish. Wars over what people think what these aliens want ludicrous.

Your method doesn't adress the fact that people can conceive of an infinite number of things, both true and false. Most flights of fancy are false. If they cannot be substantiated, they are ignorable

[fizixgeek]

Hatter, I definitely respect that position.

Now, could you imagine a truth that affects your life and can be proven, but not in a controlled experiment?

[Ambassador Pony]

You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

You really need to start citing the specific instances of "name-calling" and such when you make a comment such as this one. I always think it's me.

I want to lead you along the path to a debate where it is implicitly understood we're all nice people, but we're putting that aside for the sake of expedience and a raw intellectual bagarre. I don't want to move too quickly.

You should understand that I don't see referencing your reinforcement history as ad hominem. To me, it towers over any discussion of your belief system and your adherence to it.

[Hatter23]

Hatter, I definitely respect that position.

Now, could you imagine a truth that affects your life and can be proven, but not in a controlled experiment?

Yes, but I would not accept it as an absolute.

A common example would include political theory.

I do not accept the concept of outside (that is non human) agency afecting my life, and changing my behavior regarding such outside agency, until said outside agency is evidenced. I am not foolish, and plenty of people have said such things to me in my life not even considering Christianity. For example, those that are proponents of Geomancy, Astrology,  or crystals affecting one's life energies.

[Ambassador Pony]

But is it really so crazy to imagine that there are things that are true that cannot be proven (or disproven) in a controlled experiment?

It's always imagined, and examined. The evidence points to the symbol processing nature of human cognition. Such perceptions, that there is somehow more, are an artifact of a language-using primate with a fore-brain, who's schema can form as a mix and match to produce ideas that seem to extend beyond what is evident. That's why the word "semantics" will innevitably come up in such a discussion as the one you will have.

It's not crazy to imagine this at all, it is a predictable consequence of what we are. However, it is not real beyond the confines of our imagination, AFAIK.

Can you provide examples?

[fizixgeek]

You don't have to worry about anymore genuine inquisitive introspection here. We'll just go back to empty-headed name-calling. Where is Omen anyway?

You really need to start citing the specific instances of "name-calling" and such when you make a comment such as this one. I always think it's me.

I want to lead you along the path to a debate where it is implicitly understood we're all nice people, but we're putting that aside for the sake of expedience and a raw intellectual bagarre. I don't want to move too quickly.

You should understand that I don't see referencing your reinforcement history as ad hominem. To me, it towers over any discussion of your belief system and your adherence to it.

I agree that if the topic were my belief system and my adherence to it then my upbringing would be central. That's a different topic, but I'll stick around for it. Shall we start a new thread--"fizixgeek's religion"?

I will expect some tit-for-tat and I've appreciated your willingness on another thread. So, here's my question to you and I hope you'll consider it in the same sincere spirit in which it's presented:

If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

[Omen]

I'm not sure why religious apologist think that behaving dishonestly is somehow a means of conveying a defense of religion.  How exactly are you arguing for any position using disingenuous tactics such as avoiding talking points, imposing a set series of conditions you're trying to get others to respond with, and emphasizing that you're not really here to argue for the affirmative of your god claim?

[fizixgeek]

Actually, on second thought, if the topic is why I believe what I believe, then it makes sense to move to my page, www.eatnails.net. If you want to talk about God or religion in general, and whether or not amputees disprove God's existence, then let's stay here.

[Omen]

If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

Pascals wager, really?

More accurately, you want to ask a question that presupposes that an unexplained qualification of value is determined by belief in your superstition, as if others were part of that presupposition and that that presupposition is objectively true.  Yet, you don't want to discuss your belief system that imposes such ridiculous non-sequitirs in the first place?

[Hatter23]

If you're only moving toward a deep, black nothingness, what is worth striving for?

Actually everything that would give life meaning....because it is all you have before you arrive at that black nothingness. I am not one that says eternity makes life meaningless, eternity or not...one still can strive to make things better, whether or not you are there to see it.

[fizixgeek]

Omen, <removed by fizixgeek for civility. Apologies to Omen>. The question is just that, a question.

Thanks for your reply, Hatter.

[Omen]

Omen, the grown-ups are trying to have a conservation. The question is just that, a question

Thanks for the ad hominem, but to be honest your animosity to me is purely because I've called you on your dishonesty from your very first post on.  You have never addressed any of my criticisms, only other than to offer a blank denial and to repeat your initial claim.

- You have not made a single claim where your logic follows into a dichotomy between theism and atheism.  This is called a false dichotomy, meaning you have imposed a two sided series of conditions that are not true even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt of your initial premises.

- You have also not made a single claim where you have addressed the burden of proof, you have worked to avoid the burden of proof as it relates to standard logical arguments.  You have incessantly presupposed 'truths' as if they were known or self evident without explanation or demand to provide evidence for the blank assertion itself.

- You have offered arguments of personal incredulity, rejecting wholesale vague conditional claims ( ignoring that they rarely have anything to do with atheism ) based on nothing more than your personal emotional dislike of something.

- From the very beginning I've pointed out that if you're going to presuppose any conditions in the discussion as if they were true, then you are engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics.  Presuppositional apologetics are dishonest type of word play, where you work to avoid establishing the criteria for determining your claims to be true and instead presuppose them to be true.  You then, as the presuppositionalist, avoid any discussion to determine the veracity of your own claims.  This has been your defacto behavior since you began.

- You selectively choose what to respond too, often reducing posts to either outright misrepresentations of the post of someone else or choosing to engage in a tit for tat style rhetoric.  You claim others support your positions, omitting their posts down to single phrases or statements, while in actuality their posts often contradict your own.  You've equivocated and obfuscated to the point of sophistry, whenever required to be responsible for your own claims.

I've been referenced by others here and they have repeated the same criticisms; all of which you've ignored.

[velkyn]

Omen, the grown-ups are trying to have a conservation. The question is just that, a question.

Thanks for your reply, Hatter.

You know, I really doubt that it's "just that, a question."  It's the same old nonsense that theists try to get atheists with.  Ohhh, what is the purpose of life if you don't have *my* god there to give it purpose?  What shallow lives you all lead.  I have a lot of purpose in my life. 

Omen's right, it's just one more version of Pascal's Wager.  The usual theist making baseless assumptions about the universe and their religion. They postulate some skeeery things about the universe in a typical appeal to emotion.  They then proceed to desperately hope that atheists are unhappy so they can feel better about themselves. 

[fizixgeek]

Omen, I apologize for my last post. I will modify. You are welcome to do the same.

[Omen]

Omen, I apologize for my last post. I will modify. You are welcome to do the same.

I have nothing to apologize for.  My hostility has only been a measured response to the dishonest and disingenuous behavior you've brought to this forum, you would have an entirely different experience if you actually worked to have an open discussion with others instead of trying to force people to respond to criteria that they reject or do not accept at face value.

I also reject your apology as not being genuine, because you still are not actually responding to the criticisms leveled at you.  Are you going to begin to respond to those criticisms or are you going to continue to try to force discussion into narrow predetermined talking points that you are only willing to accept?

[fizixgeek]

It's clear we're not communicating very well. I'm not trying to be evasive. It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists, then read half a dozen post that say, "But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.

[EV]

Fizixgeek,

Two pointers- Welcome to the forum firstly. I'm quite excited too to have a Mormon here, they are rare on this site!

Secondly-

Are you aware that 'Kolob' backwards is

Bolok?

Which read aloud sounds like the singular adjective of an apt description of what Joseph Smith was talking when he wrote this book of Mormon?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons

See if South Park with it's loveable display of sarcastic portrayal of faith is able to make you realise how incredible your religion is. Not incredible in a good way, incredible in the sense that it is in (not) credible (trustworthy).

P.S Sorry if this is not from correct Latin roots source Historicity

[Omen]

I'm not trying to be evasive.

Case in point:

It's frustrating for me to say over and over again that I will not and cannot prove to you that God exists

This is evasive obfuscation; you have no negligible information you can convey unless you can objectively determine the reasonableness of premises and claims that you make.  You can't claim to be defending a 'theistic' view point, because you have nothing for which to defend it with.  No logic, no evidence, and just a blank series of utterances .. as if blindly saying something means that that thing is relevant, reasonable, and rational.

There is no authority you can establish, no argument you can make, and absolutely nothing you can say to counter or defend any position.  This doesn't give you permission to continue to ignore demands for you to provide the burden of proof for your own claims.  Repeating this over and over, doesn't tell us anything more, doesn't defend yourself from the burden of proof logically, and more importantly doesn't respond tot he criticism pointed out about this painfully stupid assertion when you first made it to begin with.

What stops you from responding to that criticism?  Why can't you respond to the counter argument?

"But you haven't said anything to prove god exists!"

You make arguments and claims that presuppose conditions of your superstitious beliefs as if they were true.

Of course others would then demand you to provide the burden of proof for those assertions and presuppositions.  Which you then ignore or obfuscate in return.

I'm starting a new thread. It's title is "I will not prove God exists" Come on over.

So we can watch you be evasive and troll the forum which is against the rules?  No thanks.

Omen (and anyone else), if you have an objection to something I've said that cannot be reduced to "But you haven't shown me why God exists!" then come on over.

You've had literally hundreds of direct criticisms, pointing of fallacies, and other problems that you've simply ignored.  Summarizing all of them as 'but you haven't shown me why God exists!" is an outright lie.

[fizixgeek]

New thread is here

[EV]

And our questions are HERE --> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.58.html

Answer them...

[fizixgeek]

I'd prefer to make a clean start. If you have a question you think is still relevant, would you mind posting it to the other thread?