I will not prove God exists

[Omen]

But ....but ..but if you just read the book of mormon I am sure you will see what I see if you pray hard enough GIMME A BREAK

And if you don't read it to match his presupposed conditions, then clearly you're doing it wrong and can be dismissed at face value without any explanation because obviously.. you didn't reach the presupposition of his own absolute truth.

This kind of crap is so painfully stupid I could use it to argue for magical banana riding leprechauns from mars, bent on coming to earth to raise Houdini because he is their homeopathic guru and saint of a sentient custard creme pie from pluto.

1. It doesn't have to be consistent and can't be argued to be consistent, because I've assumed all consistency and can rationalize anyway I see fit to that end.

2. It doesn't have to be argued in the affirmative, because I can presume it to be self evident even if it is not and refuse to argue in the affirmative of those false premises whenever I like.  I can also make up new conditions and presuppositions, that are as useless and unsupported as the ones I made up earlier in order to conclude that because of them then all of my earlier presuppositions are testable.  For example:

If people like custard creme pie and trees, trees are the magical harmonica for the custard creme pie from pluto, then everything I asserted before must be true.

3. I then can conclude upon my own presuppositions, without any argument and drawing a straight line from my presupposed supposition to conclusion.

[fizixgeek]

No one ever claimed religion would make you better

Actually, you did.

I don't think it's honest to clip my quote mid-sentence. Here's the original:

No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

I'd also like to point out that I never said this:

But ....but ..but if you just read the book of mormon I am sure you will see what I see if you pray hard enough

Mods, how about some help here?

[Omen]

No one ever claimed religion would make you better

Actually, you did.

I don't think it's honest to clip my quote mid-sentence. Here's the original:

I don't care, the rest of your statement was not informative.  Remember when I said you constantly use red herrings and denials in response to criticisms?  Well, here you are doing it again:

Why do higher rates of religious belief correlate with lower education standards, higher rates of violent crime, higher rates of spousal abuse, higher rates of rape, higher rates of abortion, greater teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDS, and other kinds of negative societal ills amongst every secular democracy in existence?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

Your 'testable criteria' leaves no other possibility, you are literally saying that if someone pretends to believe they will be .. here I'll let you put your foot in your mouth:

You'll be naturally more loving, more patient, more self-assured, happier.

If people were actually any of the three, this would lead to a healthier society.  There are majorities of people that are not only religious in secular democracies, but also non-religious.  There is also a dichotomy imposed with your statement:

You are saying that a person that pretends to believe will be more loving, implying that a person that does not pretend to believe will be less loving.

You are saying that a preson that pretends to believe will be more patient, implying that a person that does not pretend  believe will be less patient.

You are saying that a person that pretends to believe will be more happy, implying that a person that does not pretend to believe will be less happy.

Logically, if greater rates of non-belief exist in other secular democracies we then can expect the data to match your claim.  However, the data does not match your claim.  Your response to pointing out that problem is to say,"No one ever claimed religion would make you better."

Sorry, you don't get to deny what is logically implied by your own statements.

I'd also like to point out that I never said this:

Not only did you say it, I responded to it.. and watched you ignore it through obfuscation/denial.  It is quickly becoming your normal tactic; make unsupported assertions, ignore contradictions, play a game of denial and obfuscation.

[fizixgeek]

I propose we try this at once! We'll collect volunteers here on WWGHA. We give everyone a Likert test. Then, one-third of volunteers will read the Book of Mormon once a day and pray to God to know whether it's true. This group (and, in fact, each group) will have to certify that, if they discover the Book of Mormon to be true, they will strive to live by the precepts they read there. One-third will read the phone book once a day and pray (something) to the jug of milk. The last third will continue to live their dreary godless, JOM-less lives . After 4 weeks, we'll administer our test again and look for improvement and I'll go report that I got 6 atheists to read the Book of Mormon daily for a month. Imagine all the Mormon points I'll get for that!

That's not a good sample group. I know what science knows about how religious behaviour functions, how and why folk adopt such beliefs as mormonism, and what the source of the effect is that you propose exists. Whether I am correct or not, my expectations might colour my perception of any effect, and/or determine the effect itself, as would most other atheists here, who think it's a load of horseshit.

We'd have to likewise ban all mormons or people that know a lot about mormonism for the same reason. Random sample with pre-experiment religious attitude questionnaire to accompany the baseline measurement is essential.

Phonebook isn't a good placebo. It has to be another religious-type text. I'd go with Confucius' Analects.

How else, do you think, might we remove bias, so as not to colour our result?

Edit: Will we tell all participants what to expect as a result of their study, or set it up so they don't know what we're testing for before and after?

Edit edit: Do you think a mormon can have a false positive? That is to say, to mistakenly attribute a positive outcome to scripture study that in fact has no connection to that behaviour.

<-- Can a brother get some darwins here?

Really, that whole post was pretty tongue in cheek. They discontinued the "Mormon points" promotion long ago .

I would be glad to replace the phone book with Confucius. Also, you're probably right that we'd have to find a way to hide from the participants what it is we're measuring. To be honest, I don't think we're going to be able to make it work.

I think a false positive is possible. That is, I might happen to have a really great day the same day that I start reading the Book of Mormon. The effect, in my opinion and with some exceptions, would only be visible in the mean over some period. But, again, I'm way over my head, here. How God will communicate with anyone else is something about which I have only circumstantial information.

[fizixgeek]

Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

It's all in the notices on the front page which you get notified of in PMs. For someone so tuned in to faith in invisible beings, it sure is amazing you can't see what's in plain view.

Whence the venom, HAL? -1 Darwins for a completely unnecessary personal dig.

[Omen]

Whence the venom, HAL? -1 Darwins for a completely unnecessary personal dig.

I've dinged you for being dishonest, although I admit you could be too stupid to realize you're own dishonesty.

[Azdgari]

Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

It's all in the notices on the front page which you get notified of in PMs. For someone so tuned in to faith in invisible beings, it sure is amazing you can't see what's in plain view.

Whence the venom, HAL? -1 Darwins for a completely unnecessary personal dig.

Not to mention that there are a lot of users who havn't been able to see what you've been unable to see.

[fizixgeek]

Whence the venom, HAL? -1 Darwins for a completely unnecessary personal dig.

I've dinged you for being dishonest, although I admit you could be too stupid to realize you're own dishonesty.

Seriously, Omen, would you treat someone this way in person?

[Omen]

Whence the venom, HAL? -1 Darwins for a completely unnecessary personal dig.

I've dinged you for being dishonest, although I admit you could be too stupid to realize you're own dishonesty.

Seriously, Omen, would you treat someone this way in person?

If someone behaved as you are, yes.

Your attitude is grossly disingenuous; you're dishonest, arrogant, and condescending.  You haven't come here for open discussion, if you had.. you wouldn't be doing what you do now.

[Omen]

Notice, that you are again.. not actually responding to any rebuttals.. or anything to do with the discussion.

[Hatter23]

I guess the devil wants to stay hidden too so we can have faith in him also.

A thoughtful question, Nick. I'll have to ponder whether the devil could have other reasons to stay hidden.

Were the Bible true, the Devil would have very good reasons to stay hidden. However, he would have far more reasons to pose as God and fool mankind into worshipping him. To pretend to be the Son of God, come off the cross and say the only way to heaven is through him, and to remain on earth as proof of his divine nature would be perfect. It would pretty much gaurentee a Satan win.

But nothing a it stands today shows the Bible to any more true than the Illiad.

[Omen]

Were the Bible true, the Devil would have very good reasons to stay hidden. However, he would have far more reasons to pose as God and fool mankind into worshipping him. To pretend to be the Son of God, come off the cross and say the only way to heaven is through him, and to remain on earth as proof of his divine nature would be perfect. It would pretty much gaurentee a Satan win.

But nothing a it stands today shows the Bible to any more true than the Illiad.

I disagree, the devil would have perfect reason to make itself not only 'known', but to destroy gods plan by not participating.  The biblical narrative describes the devil as an antagonist as about as useful and deep as your average james bond villian, the devil pops up only to serve as a plot point to a narrative that often requires the devil to behave as if it doesn't know that god is god.  Sort of like watching those cheesy anti-drug messages, where the high school kid is being harassed by the drug dealer to buy the drugs, the dealer doesn't match the behavior and the response from the kid is equally bizarre.  It comes across as sarcastically staged in order to convey an overly blunt message.

The devil could destroy gods plan by simply not playing his part, not being the idiotic bond villain that always waits to the last second to kill Bond in hideously stupid elaborate death traps.  As if the devil is not aware that an omniscient omnipotent being can't be bet against ( like in the story of Job ) or defeated in anyway possible.  Hell, any of us could destroy gods plans in the devil's shoes according the biblical narrative.

[albeto]

Seriously, Omen, would you treat someone this way in person?

I'm glad he's doing this.  I'm the kind of person that would have taken your argument point by point and that would have wasted my time and only served to have encouraged you to continue.  Pointing out these fundamental flaws you continue to suggest saves time and exposes to people like me reading along *why* they don't work.  I think it's a valuable means to illustrate what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it.  I hope you will recognize it because not only is it condescending, like has been pointed out to you in various ways, but it's disrespectful of people's time to come to a forum created for valuable discussion and clog it up with a lot of navel-gazing and self-gratification for feeling spiritually insightful.  For the life of me I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say and Omen laying it out short and sweet and to the point is invaluable to someone like me, so thank you Omen.  I appreciate it. 

[fizixgeek]

Hi Omen,

I admit that I was condescending earlier. I probably started this whole thing between us. I do ask you to forgive me and treat me better than I've treated you. I hope we can get back to some rational discussion.

I honestly don't mean to evade. You have to understand that I'm trying to hold simultaneous conversations with half a dozen people at once, which takes a lot of time. In the interest of time, I would ask you to do the same thing that jaybwell did. He read my posts and, taking them as a whole, condensed his objections to 2 questions. I'm not going to hold you to 2, but I really can't handle 6. I promise to address them as well and as clearly as I can. That's probably not fair of me to ask, but it's the only way I can get it done.

Thanks,
FG

[Avatar Of Belial]

I honestly don't mean to evade. You have to understand that I'm trying to hold simultaneous conversations with half a dozen people at once, which takes a lot of time.

If you feel you are overwhelmed, you can always put out invitations/challenges for the debate rooms. It would basically be you vs any one other person (although in theory, you could challenge more than one, I believe), so you would only have to respond to your opponent(s).

[Omen]

and treat me better

My criticisms will not change, trying to categorize my criticisms as poor treatment doesn't make them invalid.  They are not ad hominems, although I frequently become frustrated and use colorful language.  It is grossly dishonest of you to imply that my criticisms are no different from how you've been treating not just me, but everyone here.

Either you are going to have to be responsible for your own claims or you are not going to have any civil discussion with anyone.  Note, this has nothing to do with how I feel, this is a direct result of the kind of behavior your bringing to the table.  Its going to lead to frustration, because you never argue in the affirmative of your claims ( you avoid the burden of proof ) and you attempt to justify your avoidance of the burden of proof using blatant fallacies as well as obfuscating dismissals/denials.  The idea that your not honestly trying to be evasive is hard to believe and invites serious questions of your sanity and/or intelligence.

I promise to address them as well and as clearly as I can.

No you don't, because I've already done this so repeatedly that it is only enabling you to continue to evade criticisms further to even agree to this. 

That's probably not fair of me to ask, but it's the only way I can get it done.

It is obviously not fair, it is also dishonest again.. because you've already been asked simple direct questions that you have ignored or obfuscated in response too.  This isn't the only way you can get things done, that can as easily be rejected as easily as you could have simply answered a few questions without the dishonest behavior and evasiveness you have given instead.  So NOW you're going to pretend to be civil and honest.. NOW I'm supposed to believe it will just change with the snap of your finger.  No thanks.

Go back and address the arguments/criticisms received.

[LadyLucy]

Thanks, LadyA. I missed the whole thing and it's clearly been deleted now.

Yeah, it was taking up a LOT of space. [Longest post of non-sense I've ever seen...  ]

Faith in God (which, I suppose, is not always the same as religion)

It pertains to the Christian god specifically, therefore, it does correlate directly to religion. Now, if you said "a god" or "a supernatural being", then yeah, faith in "a god" does not correlate directly with any religion whatsoever. That would be only in a deist stand-point.

The more you know.

helps me in 2 ways:
1. It leads me to learn and accept new standards and morals which help me to live a happier life and more effectively improve others' lives as well.

Good for you, if you think it makes you a better person. You think of something long enough, it becomes true, so, I will not argue against this.

As a side-point, I'd like to ask you if you are against homosexuals, abortion, heretics, lepers, and are a complete sexist. I want you to answer me because these must be some of the "standards" that you have that are within the Bible. I also want to ask you if what the American Family Organization is enforcing is OK.

2. It helps me to more consistently live by those morals I already espouse.

That's very hypocritical in regards to looking both at you and the Bible. Please read the not-so-nice passages that your preacher/priest/pastor skips over on Sundays.

The only "morals" in the Bible is: Believe in YHWH, or suffer eternally in hell. You must be whole-heartedly obedient to YHWH, or he gets angry, even with Jesus dying for everyone's sins. Jesus can't interfere with his father's will is what I gathered in the end. He may be the god's son, but in no way does it make Jesus a "Get out of jail" wild card.

So, as much as any Christian would like to think so, there is no getting into heaven, because there is an infinite punishment for finite sins [meaning, you disobey the god, and you already are going to be condemned to the god's wrath].

It will (possibly does) do the same for you.

Based on the analysis of my life, if your god were real, it would be very ugly. Since he isn't real, I don't see how it could make my life any better. I know that reading the Bible didn't have an impact on my life, other than make me kinda' appalled at the content.

[Ambassador Pony]

Really, that whole post was pretty tongue in cheek. They discontinued the "Mormon points" promotion long ago .

Darwinning.   

Also, you're probably right that we'd have to find a way to hide from the participants what it is we're measuring.

I think a false positive is possible.

^ These. They imply that we're on the same level with respect to your belief system, in some ways.

To be honest, I don't think we're going to be able to make it work.

^ This, even more. +1

[fizixgeek]

I'm going to have to check out of the forums for a little while. You guys can go back to "poking fundy creationists with sticks."

See you next week.

-FG

[Omen]

I'm going to have to check out of the forums for a little while. You guys can go back to "poking fundy creationists with sticks."

See you next week.

-FG

I would define you as a fundamentalist, as well as mormonism in general.

[velkyn]

bets on if FG returns?  I do wonder how he'll respond to the fact that his magic spells don't work for people. 

[EV]

How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Baha'i etc...

Honestly.

Thanks for the summary. Some of these are true, most are invented. In the interest of time and staying on topic, I'll not go into these here. More on Mormon beliefs can be found at www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com and www.mormon.org.

If you can't demonstrate your premises to valid then your theistic beliefs are not consistent.  You ignored Elliot's request.

Yeah, you ignored Elliot's request!

These things were mostly backed up on the site I found them on by quotes from the Mormon scriptures, and partially from important Mormon books.

The only thing I was unsure about is how the church changed their stance on the people of black skin colouring being evil.

However, I would like you to still tell me which of these premises are wrong.

  -   God has a tangible body of flesh and bone: D&C 130:22


  -   God lives on a planet near the star Kolob: Book of Abraham 3:3-16

  -   Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers: D&C 76:25, Moses 4:1-4

  -   "The Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the same being named Jesus in the New Testament, but not the same as "God the Father": D&C 110:2-4; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, article "Jehovah"; 1 Nephi 19:10

  -   In the the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife: D&C 132:63

  -   Dark skin is a curse from God: 1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3:6, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15, Morm 5:15.

  -   The Garden of Eden was in Missouri: D&C 116:1; see also D&C 107:53.

  -   Satan rules water: D&C 61

  -   Gentile blood is replaced: History of the Church 3:380, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 150

  -   Seeing face of God: D&C 97:16; see also 93:1 and 88:68

  -   False angel hair color: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 214; handshake: D&C 129:1-9

are some of the examples taken DIRECTLY FROM YOUR HOLY SCRIPTURES.

The one about the Sun being governed by Kolob is listed here:

 

1And I, Abraham, had the aUrim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;

 2And I saw the astars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

 3And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is aKolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Citations given,

Suck on dat[1].

1.	Darwins please.

[12 Monkeys]

I honestly don't mean to evade. You have to understand that I'm trying to hold simultaneous conversations with half a dozen people at once, which takes a lot of time.

If you feel you are overwhelmed, you can always put out invitations/challenges for the debate rooms. It would basically be you vs any one other person (although in theory, you could challenge more than one, I believe), so you would only have to respond to your opponent(s).

When you cant really answer the question in the first place,debating seems pointless.

[12 Monkeys]

No one ever claimed religion would make you better

Actually, you did.

I don't think it's honest to clip my quote mid-sentence. Here's the original:

No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

I'd also like to point out that I never said this:

But ....but ..but if you just read the book of mormon I am sure you will see what I see if you pray hard enough

Mods, how about some help here?

Did I ever attribute the quote to you? I was impying its what you WOULD say when we tell you there is no way your methods work

[jetson]

Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

Don't let the negative Darwins bother you.

On a side note, we have about 5 months until Christmas.  I'm wondering if you could spend the 5 months reading " The Night Before Christmas", as an experiment.  I'm thinking that you stand a good chance of bringing Santa Claus back into your life if you simply read, and believe as if you were still a child.  Many adults simply lose faith, and stop believing.  But I'm here to tell you how much your life will improve, not to mention the increase in gifts under the tree!

I will add that not everyone celebrates Christmas in the same way, but Santa Claus most definitely rewards all who continue to believe...and he does it in ways that fit well no matter what your religious beliefs.  I think you will be pleased at how your life improves, once you get Santa back into your heart and mind.

P.S.  Do not replace God with Santa, they get long very well and do not mind sharing their love with you.

Does this method work with any God who has scriptures? if I read the OT and not the NT will that bring the God of the Jews back?

I would say anything is possible when you take the spiritual approach.

[screwtape]

Did I ever attribute the quote to you? I was impying its what you WOULD say when we tell you there is no way your methods work

Slow down there, boss.  Omen quoted you but it was only a plain quote, not a quote that contains the author and link.  It is possible that fiz saw that one and wondered, "what the flip?"

[12 Monkeys]

Did I ever attribute the quote to you? I was impying its what you WOULD say when we tell you there is no way your methods work

Slow down there, boss.  Omen quoted you but it was only a plain quote, not a quote that contains the author and link.  It is possible that fiz saw that one and wondered, "what the flip?"

thanks...... BAD OMEN lol

[Azdgari]

I hate those bad omens.

[screwtape]

I hate those bad omens.

is there any other kind?