|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2010 12:24:42 GMT -4
Because you asked God? I know, unfair. You assumed that I would have no good reason for accepting one prophet over the other when you wrote that. You don't have a good reason, you just think you do. So you asked God a question, and believe you got an answer. But at some point Osama Bin Laden asked God the same question and got a different answer. So that leads me to believe there is no God and you and Osama imagined your answers, or that there are two (or more) Gods.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2010 12:35:11 GMT -4
Jason is claiming to have evidence for God which parallels the evidence we present to HBs about Apollo. He directly compared the two. Actually I have better evidence for the existence of God than this forum presents to HBs for the reality of the moon langings. No one on the board has actually been to the moon, but I have actually communicated with God. Unfortunately from a debate standpoint there is no physical "objective" evidence I can present - the evidence, despite being convincing to me, is of necessity personal. All I can do is give others some hints of where they might obtain the same evidence through similar experiences. I don't want people to believe me on the strength of my words alone - I want them to become interested enough to seek out similar experiences. I also want to correct misrepresentations and misunderstandings where I find them. Again, it's not like I'm holding a gun to your head. Ignore the bottom part of the forum and you'll never have to read another of my posts on religion again. I don't think I have claimed that morals derive from God. In fact I have argued at some length (on other forums, if not here) that morals are independent of God and that He is just as beholden to obey them as we are, if not more so.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2010 12:41:34 GMT -4
You don't have a good reason, you just think you do. So you asked God a question, and believe you got an answer. But at some point Osama Bin Laden asked God the same question and got a different answer. So that leads me to believe there is no God and you and Osama imagined your answers, or that there are two (or more) Gods. Or that one or the other is mistaken. How could one prove that Osama Bin Laden's (assuming he ever did actually ask God anything) and my own experiences are equivalent?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2010 14:02:22 GMT -4
...I try to avoid reading his posts and wish like crazy that we had a proper ignore list here. I wish we had an ignore here to. I open the tread to clear the unread flag for the page and occasionally read by those that typically have something interesting to say, like yours. Every time start reading the tread, the tedious nature of the arguments make me sorry I did. This is obviously something that people strongly disagree on and something about which people cannot even agree on whether personal experience constitutes the same level of evidence as the examination of documents and objects. There is no room for agreement only bickering.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 12, 2010 18:08:42 GMT -4
Oh c'mon everyone. Surely we can discuss religion without the bickering... or can we?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2010 18:57:42 GMT -4
It is possible to discuss religion without bickering provided there is respect on all sides. Refusing to hear anyone else's perspective as even possibly valid and refusing to acknowledge the prospect of being wrong makes for vicious argument regardless of topic. Even if it seems awfully benign; there's an old episode of the Garfield cartoon wherein he gets the "wholesome" cartoon characters booted off the air by making them discuss what pizza toppings are best, which they feel so passionately about that they get into a physical fight.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 12, 2010 19:22:18 GMT -4
That's a major point, and I think "both sides" could use a little more of that. I think Jason's perspective has been seen as valid and vice versa. But you really can't expect someone who belongs to any faith acknowledge the prospect of being wrong. An internet discussion is not going to change someones views on this. What gets me is that I've known really religious people who can discuss their faith with people of other faiths. Without bickering, without insults, and with respect. In fact they have found it enlightening, informative and very fascinating and interesting. They don't say to each other "okay, prove your God exists!", they find commonalities in their beliefs and share each others approaches to prayer, their views on morality, ethics and solutions to problems that they face, be it within the church, outside the church or common situations that people deal with in society and in life. I do think that "science" should be left out of it altogether - trying to use science to validate or jusify your faith is doomed to failure. Like using math to validate art. It won't work. There are areas where more tangible evidence is needed - for instance discussing whether the Shroud of Turin is in fact genuine or if Nazareth was a town during the time of Christ - that sort of thing. This is where scientific, archaeological, historical or physical evidence is required.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2010 21:06:42 GMT -4
I think Jason's perspective has been seen as valid and vice versa. But you really can't expect someone who belongs to any faith acknowledge the prospect of being wrong. An internet discussion is not going to change someones views on this. You can't? I can. Because it's the first, most basic tenet of my own beliefs. "I am human and therefore fallible; I could be wrong." No, I doubt an internet discussion would be what convinced me, but I do go into every religious discussion with the awareness that God is beyond my grasp, and I could be wrong. And I've had those discussions. Indeed, I knew a Mormon years ago (dead, alas, so I don't know if we could now) with whom I was able to have intelligent discussions on religion. Of course, an awful lot of it did seem to be correcting misconceptions he had about religions not his own, but yeah. I know all sorts of religious and not-religious people with whom I have had reasonable conversations, and they all start with a little basic respect. When someone says they have objective evidence that there really is a God, it is perfectly legitimate to question it scientifically. I don't say that, because I don't have it. I have belief, which is not dependent on evidence. But when someone says their faith is based on evidence, it's only reasonable to expect that that evidence will be sought and tested.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 12, 2010 21:29:39 GMT -4
When someone says they have objective evidence that there really is a God, it is perfectly legitimate to question it scientifically. I don't say that, because I don't have it. I have belief, which is not dependent on evidence. But when someone says their faith is based on evidence, it's only reasonable to expect that that evidence will be sought and tested. Did Jason say he had evidence (scientific or independent) that there is a God beyond his own self-awareness (thats the wrong term but you know what I mean) ?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 12, 2010 23:09:26 GMT -4
Jason’s claims on evidence of God are from his own experiences if you want evidence from him, become a Mormon like him, live your life like him and you may get the same experiences as he does. There is nothing he can do otherwise to convince anyone.
My Mother in Law is very very religious she constantly goes on about going to church, how this saint helped this person and that person. She is always trying to protect and prepare us all for the apocalypse. It got to a stage where my kids my wife and my poor sister in law were freaking out. I had to step in because it was going too far. Now as bad as it sounds the only reason she was doing this is because she loves her family and has genuine concern for our souls. This is what spreading the word of God is all about. When a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness comes knocking, they do it because they truly believe that they are trying to save us. Because they are right in their beliefs if we do disagree with them we must be wrong. That is not arrogance it is how they see it from their point of view.
As for preventing certain people from having rights, how can he possibly encourage certain behaviour by giving those people rights when it is part of his very core to oppose behaviour like that? As far as he’s concerned they are damned for being the way they are. That is his belief.
Look I have had this argument before but every faith has rules and as far as they are concerned you can’t just change the rules to suit the trends of the day. If homosexuality was unacceptable (to the church) 500 years ago it must be unacceptable today. There are many other “sins” that fall into this scenario.
Analogy time; If a certain highway had a speed limit of 50 mph since it opened but over the years people started speeding and doing 80, 90 whatever, you don’t then change the speed limit to 90 just because people have been doing 90. The limit must stay at 50 it is the law. So while I disagree with Jason’s rules of the Mormon faith and many others, I do not disagree with him standing by those rules. It is the truth as he sees it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2010 12:35:02 GMT -4
Jason’s claims on evidence of God are from his own experiences if you want evidence from him, become a Mormon like him, live your life like him and you may get the same experiences as he does. There is nothing he can do otherwise to convince anyone. Precisely. My internet forays are to correct misinformation, answer questions that might provoke further interest, and for entertainment value, not really to convince anyone. Almost. I believe people are only ever damned for their actions, not for their thoughts or beliefs or "who they are".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2010 12:51:20 GMT -4
It may well be arrogant to believe you know everything about Apollo, but is it arrogant to assume that the latest hoax believer who joins the forum and presents his argument is wrong while you are right?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2010 13:40:05 GMT -4
Did Jason say he had evidence (scientific or independent) that there is a God beyond his own self-awareness (thats the wrong term but you know what I mean) ? Well, I know his faith must involve trumping the research of Egyptologists and archaeologists in North America, given that there's precisely no scientific evidence there for it and quite a lot against. I know he believes in objective standards of morality. He and PW have both said that they have experienced things that cannot be explained scientifically, which to me means that science should get the chance to see if that's true or not. As to controlling the lives of others based on your own religious belief, we in the United States have this little thing called the First Amendment which means that your religious morals don't get to become law because they're your religious morals. State-sponsored religion and all that, which of course diminishes the state and the religion in my view. No, as Elizabeth I put it, let them all go to the Devil in their own way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2010 14:46:53 GMT -4
Well, I know his faith must involve trumping the research of Egyptologists and archaeologists in North America, given that there's precisely no scientific evidence there for it and quite a lot against. It would be more accurate to say that there is little direct evidence (like place names) that identifies the civilizations of the pre-Colombian Americas as the same as those in the Book of Mormon, and some evidence that would contradict a caricature viewpont or a shallow reading of the text. More in-depth study will reveal that it's not unreasonable that such evidence is absent or yet to be found, and that the evidence against our preconceptions or assumptions is not in fact evidence against what the text claims. The evidence that indirectly shows that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about, like the presence of Hebrewisms and chiasmus in the Book of Mormon text, parallels in the Book of Abraham with ancient texts concerning Abraham that were not available at the time Smith produced the Book of Mormon, etc. are often outright dismissed by critics without engaging them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 13, 2010 20:02:04 GMT -4
I'd guess that billions of people believe in objective standards of morality. And many people have experienced things that cannot be explained scientifically, or at least they believe that. I've had a few weird things happen to me in my life that I thought were, ah, unexplainable but came across answers in books I read later on. Yes, but once you bring the word "objective" into it, you become subject to requests to test the objective evidence. And you were able to find an explanation to things "science couldn't explain."
|
|