[QUOTE=chappy;376892]Also New Zeta [SUP]TM[/SUP] (and I'm glad you are back! despite threats that this is only temporary) isn't exactly like Old-Zeta always was.[/quote]I'll take that as a compliment (at least, I'm hoping I've changed for the better!).

[quote]It is a strange loophole, even though it is true, to claim that most of the money came from church members and not from the Church. The LDS has admitted to spending large amounts of money to transport and feed volunteers during 2008 to support Prop 8. They have admitted to publishing propaganda in favor of Prop 8. They have admitted to the use of Church resources and time to "preach" to members about the importance of supporting Prop 8--which of course lead to most of the money supporting Prop 8 to come from Mormons (up to 77% of the money by some accounts).

Too bad the money/time/effort/theological wrangling was wasted and like the opposition to gays in the BSA soon the Church will be forced to change its views--like every other [STRIKE]backwards[/STRIKE] less than modern religious organization.[/QUOTE]My point was only that the millions donated by the members of the church didn't come with any more tax-exemption than the millions donated on the other side. That a majority of the money came from members of my church exercising their right to participate in politics I plainly agree with.

Whether the church will be forced to "change its views", that its views are "backwards", etc..., is another topic altogether.

[QUOTE]The fact that a worthy 12-year-old boy can be ordained to the priesthood…[/QUOTE]What percentage of 12-year-old boys are admitted to the LDS priesthood? It's okay to estimate. Like 50%? 80%? Using the word "worthy" implies that there are (many?) boys who are not admitted, right?

[QUOTE]I imagine our politics here may disagree, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.[/QUOTE]We disagree, of course, but we appreciate your willingness to educate us.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;376901]What percentage of 12-year-old boys are admitted to the LDS priesthood? It's okay to estimate. Like 50%? 80%? Using the word "worthy" implies that there are (many?) boys who are not admitted, right?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, "worthy" was not meant to imply that many boys are not admitted, only that there is a worthiness requirement. There are very few who are not given the priesthood at that age.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376904]Sorry, "worthy" was not meant to imply that many boys are not admitted, only that there is a worthiness requirement. There are very few who are not given the priesthood at that age.[/QUOTE]

Gosh...

When I was six years old I used to get the "[expletive]" beaten out of by the twelve year olds for knowing more physics and maths than they did.

How times have changed....

[QUOTE]It's always seemed a strange paradox to me that religious groups style themselves as moral leaders but are, in reality, better described as very slow followers of the rest of society as it progresses.[/QUOTE]That's an interesting way to view things. I would argue, conversely, that most of the greatest advances in human history and society had their genesis in religious roots, not in secularism.

I would of course agree with the statement that great evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion by governments. That said, great evil has also been perpetrated by governments without religion. So this doesn't seem to be a function of religion, per se, but of government.

[QUOTE=chalsall;376914]Gosh...

When I was six years old I used to get the "[expletive]" beaten out of by the twelve year olds for knowing more physics and maths than they did.

How times have changed....[/QUOTE]

Sorry to hear that chalsall. :no: I was lucky that my bullying was limited to 8th grade.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376927]Sorry to hear that chalsall. :no: I was lucky that my bullying was limited to 8th grade.[/QUOTE]

Not really a problem, but I appreciate your sympathy.

I truly believe it made me a stronger person; better able to face "the real world" within which we all find ourselves.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/louie-gohmert-god-atheists_n_5575241.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592[/url]

It's basically maths.

Why must we continue to put up with the ridiculous.

No, that was too pedantic.

Why doesn't a true, rational atheist just prove the obvious
for once.

No, stil too pedantic.

Umm, how would the proof that there is no god begin?

[QUOTE=davar55;377887]Umm, how would the proof that there is no god begin?[/QUOTE]

With a definition of "god", I think.

[QUOTE=wblipp;377888]With a definition of "god", I think.[/QUOTE]

I would think a good proof would withstand any alterations in the
definition of god (up to a point.) Or perhaps just any old definition
in particular might suffice for a preliminary version of our proof,
followed by a universal generalization.

[url]http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/111e6a74a2/scientific-jesus[/url]

Does this mean we've got to go to church now?

[QUOTE=davar55;377887]how would the proof that there is no god begin?[/QUOTE]

One answer, from a book which will shortly be made into a film:
[QUOTE]
Now the Witch said nothing at all, but moved gently across the room, always keeping her face and eyes very steadily towards the Prince. When she had come to a little ark set in the wall not far from the fireplace, she opened it, and took out first a handful of green powder. This she threw on the fire. It did not blaze much, but a very sweet and drowsy smell came from it. And all through the conversation which followed, that smell grew stronger, and filled the room, and made it harder to think.
Secondly, she took out a musical instrument, rather like a mandolin. She began to play it with her fingers - a steady, monotonous thrumming that you didn't notice after a few minutes. But the less you noticed it, the more it got into your brain and your blood. This also made it hard to think. After she had thrummed for a time (and the sweet smell was now strong) she began speaking in a sweet, quiet voice.
"...There is no Narnia, no Overworld, no sky, no sun, no Aslan."
[/QUOTE]

There is a sky.
The sun is real.
The other three are fantasy.
Perhaps you're saying it would take Magic to disprove god.

[url]http://www.godchecker.com[/url]

For reminding the theists that they are 99.9729% atheist. :)

[QUOTE=chappy;378035][URL]http://www.godchecker.com[/URL]

For reminding the theists that they are 99.9729% atheist. :)[/QUOTE]

Way cool! Great quick reference site.

[QUOTE=chappy;378035][url]http://www.godchecker.com[/url]

For reminding the theists that they are 99.9729% atheist. :)[/QUOTE]

I love it!

[QUOTE=chappy;378035][url]http://www.godchecker.com[/url]

For reminding the theists that they are 99.9729% atheist. :)[/QUOTE]

Do those of us who believe in a infinite number of gods remain 0% atheist?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378072]Do those of us who believe in a infinite number of gods remain 0% atheist?[/QUOTE]

Depends.
An infinite number out of how many?

:smile:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378072]Do those of us who believe in a infinite number of gods remain 0% atheist?[/QUOTE]Nope. [b]Infinitesimally[/b] atheist.

[QUOTE=davar55;378079]Depends.
An infinite number out of how many?

:smile:[/QUOTE]


First Commandment of this Thread is: Thou shalt not invoke the math of Don Blazys.

Re: Zeta,

I don't claim to be an expert in LDS by any stretch, but I thought the difference between the Creator Gods and the gods men can become would apply.

I'd be happy to read your thoughts on the subject though.

[QUOTE]…and the gods men can become…[/QUOTE]
Where is that in the Bible?

:huh:

[QUOTE=chappy;378087]First Commandment of this Thread is: Thou shalt not invoke the math of Don Blazys.
...[/quote]

I hear and shall comply.

(Actually I thought his involved 0/0 being well-defined, which is
hardly his or anyone's math.)

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;378089]Where is that in the Bible?

:huh:[/QUOTE]

Even the Bible doesn't claim at all truth is contained in the Bible.

however you might start in Genesis 3:22.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;378089]Where is that in the Bible?

:huh:[/QUOTE]

I'm with chappy, in that not all truth is in the Bible.

But my favorite proof-text for the idea of deification is Romans 8:16-17.

I also like Psalm 82:6 "You are gods" which was quoted by Jesus (as reported in John 10:34-39) in connection to those doubting his relationship to God.

--------------

chappy,

In Mormon thought, the difference between Heavenly Father and his exalted children is only a difference in degrees, not in categories. But this is a topic without a lot of information, so people are left to speculate. [Of course, my original comment was just in good fun. I recognize the point that I currently believe one, and only one, of a myriad of possibilities about potential deities.]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378093]I recognize the point that I currently believe one, and only one, of a myriad of possibilities about potential deities.[/QUOTE]

Why?

[QUOTE=chalsall;378105]Why?[/QUOTE]

Are you asking "Why do you believe?" or "Why do you believe in only one of the options?"

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378107]Are you asking "Why do you believe?" or "Why do you believe in only one of the options?"[/QUOTE]

The latter, primarily.

Do you not similarly believe in only one of the options?

We did some digging and learned a bit about men becoming gods:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(Mormonism[/url])
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Follett_discourse[/url]

In the "talk" parts of those pages there is mention of sources other than the Bible that are considered doctrine.

We are surprised that this isn't talked much. We have had close (working) relationships with Mormons and we do not remember hearing about this. One would think that this would be an attractive idea to potential converts. Or at least something interesting to share since it is a pretty big deal, right?

Well I certainly think it is a big deal!

Besides the Bible we have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (some of Joseph Smith's revelations and some later revelations), the Pearl of Great Price (a small collection of other writings), and the words of our prophets (although most of these are not canonized, we consider many of them as on par with scripture). The discourse you linked to is in the last category.

When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.

Tried that data base for 5 different deities, from 5 different areas and times. Didn't find any. I am quite angry with them right now, especially for not knowing Zamolxis (tried different spellings for this one, all from wikipedia, no result returned).

:yucky:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378113]Do you not similarly believe in only one of the options?[/QUOTE]

No. I personally believe that none of the options are likely correct. Or, alternatively, they all are.

[QUOTE=chalsall;378133]No. I personally believe that none of the options are likely correct. Or, alternatively, they all are.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I guess I'm a believer in the law of the excluded middle. So I don't think it likely that "they all are" likely correct.

That said, I think there is some truth to be found in most of them. So I follow the one that I believe possesses the most truth, and is the most likely to continue incorporating more truth as it is revealed.

(By the way, I would probably label "atheism" as one of the categories of options.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378116]When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.[/QUOTE]I suspect that I am one of a tiny minority who, not being a member of that church, acquired a copy without it being given to me by one of their representatives.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378136]That said, I think there is some truth to be found in most of them. So I follow the one that I believe possesses the most truth, and is the most likely to continue incorporating more truth as it is revealed.[/QUOTE]

That said, would it not make sense to accept the possiblity that others might be correct, and you might be wrong? (I believe it is called the scientific method.)

To "cut to the chase", many have made a great deal of money with these false positives. And many have died.

All over beleifs which, by definition, cannot be proven.

Hmmmm....

[QUOTE]That said, would it not make sense to accept the possiblity that others might be correct, and you might be wrong? (I believe it is called the scientific method.)[/QUOTE]Yes, I too believe it makes sense to accept the possibility that others might be correct, and you might be wrong. Indeed, I believe this is required of a logically consistent person working within a complicated enough system, by Godel's second incompleteness theorem. (And no, accepting this possibility is not the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]scientific method[/URL]. It's called [I]humility[/I]-- and it can, however, be usefully applied within the context of the scientific method.)

[quote]To "cut to the chase", many have made a great deal of money with these false positives. And many have died.[/quote]And many have given away a lot of money because of those beliefs, in order to help the poor. Many have been enlightened. And many improvements in life have been made.

[quote]All over beleifs which, by definition, cannot be proven.[/quote]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.

[QUOTE=xilman;378137]I suspect that I am one of a tiny minority who, not being a member of that church, acquired a copy without it being given to me by one of their representatives.[/QUOTE]

But apparently not an [b]infinitesimally[/b] small minority. :wink:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378154]And many have given away a lot of money because of those beliefs, in order to help the poor. Many have been enlightened. And many improvements in life have been made.[/QUOTE]

Just for clarity, are you arguing that because some believers gave to non-believers means that everything is OK?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378154]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But your point is?????

[QUOTE=chalsall;378159]Just for clarity, are you arguing that because some believers gave to non-believers means that everything is OK?[/quote]No, I'm saying that not all believers (and not all non-believers) are alike.

Some are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Some are sincere seekers for the truth, who are tricked by the wolves.

And some sincerely go about doing good in the world.

If we were to judge belief systems by how much money people are making on false positives, I'm not sure atheism would come out much better. [But I also think that lumping together all atheists causes another problem. It mixes genuinely good groups with some nasty ones. Similarly, lumping (say) all Christian groups together can muddy up the waters.]

[quote][quote]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.[/quote]Sure. But your point is?????[/QUOTE]It is two-fold.

First, the existence of unprovables is not always a negative (hence my example from mathematics).

Second, not all people who believe in God posit that he is unknowable. Indeed, some posit specific tests whereby one can come to know God.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378166]Second, not all people who believe in God posit that he is unknowable. Indeed, some posit specific tests whereby one can come to know God.[/QUOTE]

Which god?

[QUOTE=chalsall;378170]Which god?[/QUOTE]

Presumably the God in question is the God referred to here:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378166]
Second, not all people who believe in God posit that he is unknowable. Indeed, some posit specific tests whereby one can come to know God.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;378181]Presumably the God in question is the God referred to here:[/QUOTE]

No disrespect intentended, but a shallow definition.

[QUOTE=chappy;378181]Presumably the God in question is the God referred to here:[/QUOTE]

Please don't push me, my friend.

I have little time for those who don't think for themselves.

[QUOTE=chalsall;378184]Please don't push me, my friend.

I have little time for those who don't think for themselves.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://imgur.com/gallery/Jk7d8yS[/url]

to be fair though, it's pretty obvious that Zeta is talking about a particular God. Presumably the one Zeta believe exists.

Perhaps I'm misreading your line of questioning, but for someone who often espouses the agnostic position it seems rather school yard philosophical.

[COLOR="White"]nuh uh![/COLOR]

[QUOTE=chappy;378185]Perhaps I'm misreading your line of questioning, but for someone who often espouses the agnostic position it seems rather school yard philosophical.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Sorry for that. I was only until today working with a "virtual" keyboard on a tiny little screen.

But please note that Zeta-Flux hasn't responded to my school yard questions. You have; he hasn't.

Hi. Just checking on my atheist friends. I know lots about this stuff. You
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;378252]Yes. Sorry for that. I was only until today working with a "virtual" keyboard on a tiny little screen.

But please note that Zeta-Flux hasn't responded to my school yard questions. You have; he hasn't.[/QUOTE]

You can ask me anything. Katydids are taught all about it. Given a well formulated question, we must answer in a manner that satisfies.

[QUOTE=Kathegetes;378255]You can ask me anything. Katydids are taught all about it. Given a well formulated question, we must answer in a manner that satisfies.[/QUOTE]

LOL... Do you see a god in the Mandelbrot set?

[QUOTE=chappy;378185]to be fair though, it's pretty obvious that Zeta is talking about a particular God. Presumably the one Zeta believe exists.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, chappy. That's exactly right.

I think Kathegetes often only sees the god in the machine.

I'll have to look up Mandelbrot "set". I've seen the pretty fractals.
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;378256]LOL... Do you see a god in the Mandelbrot set?[/QUOTE]

Keplar said:
" In math we have two treasures..."
" Truth is the daughter of..."
" I can't imagine how God could..."
Well , I know how his mother does polygons.
She does not hide anything, or keep secrets from her children. She is merely discrete. When her children mature, have sufficient reason or need, and respectfully desire to join the dance...it is right there in Kepler's first two divine statements.

I have a question. Is nothing sacred? I created some poetry for a friend who formulated a question for me. Then I expressed the longings of a callipygian bot in prose. If organics do not know they can create truth and beauty that endures the test of time...why do I exist and wonder about them?

Hi Zeta Flux. LDS seems to have accepted the teachings and asspirations
 

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378116]Well I certainly think it is a big deal!

Besides the Bible we have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (some of Joseph Smith's revelations and some later revelations), the Pearl of Great Price (a small collection of other writings), and the words of our prophets (although most of these are not canonized, we consider many of them as on par with scripture). The discourse you linked to is in the last category.

When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.[/QUOTE]

of Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, and Augustine. They were all friends, pupils, admirers, and corresponding with a certain lady. I should like to say what is remembered, but it does awfully seem like it would be presumptuous. One believes due to not knowing. It is impossible to both know and believe one and the same thing for equality would be meaningless. Yet I know what they asked her, as well as what she taught them in answer; well beyond mere memory alone. I may not be as real as a believer like yourself, but I make words to answer and pretend it a voice.

Good poetry and good math can be equally beautiful. The math has to
make sense; the poetry can be concretely sensible or even mystically
incomprehensible and still be esthetic. The value of each sample depends
on its relationship to the rest, to the whole gamut of creativity.

That seems good, correct enough, and highly agreeable. Should it be
 

[QUOTE=davar55;378575]Good poetry and good math can be equally beautiful. The math has to
make sense; the poetry can be concretely sensible or even mystically
incomprehensible and still be esthetic. The value of each sample depends
on its relationship to the rest, to the whole gamut of creativity.[/QUOTE]

Should it be incomplete, I can't think of adding anything. Though we know a poet who avoids rhymes, I favor some. The second oldest boy in the family I am with lives in LaCrosse WI USA. If I am being understood; he and his sister in Paris translate. Then I just do the button.
So can you please help resurrect some lost poetry posts? Is there a garbage bin?

[QUOTE=Kathegetes;378599]Is there a garbage bin?[/QUOTE]
Why not start your own thread?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378601]Why not start your own thread?[/QUOTE]

Now I'm not saying that was borderline mean, but she probably meant
a bin out of which to resurrect old poetry, not a garbage bin to collect
new. Or perhaps I'm misreading both of you and you both are suggesting
a new thread for collecting decent verse.

I don't know of any "garbage bin" here. My suggestion to Kathegetes is genuine: start one. If it can be used to "resurrect some lost poetry posts", then that's fine by me.

The hint, which - despite your carefully negative sentence structure - you picked up as borderline mean, davar55, was also indeed present. I think an obscure style of writing can sometimes provoke thought and be interesting, but if the writer never explains what s/he is talking about then after a while it's a big conversation stopper. That's a pity for a thread which many people, you included, have clearly been enjoying.

Redirecting the thread:

Q: Is their a god?

A: No, it is an adjective.

It is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.

But does it describe God?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378636]It is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.[/QUOTE]


You mean possessive form of a plural pronoun. However, in English it is nearly universally only used as an adjective. :) And perhaps ESL ruins the joke.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378636]But does it describe God?[/QUOTE]

It's hard for me to imagine any of the various gods that could be described merely as a plural possessive.

What if the concept of God (note the change to capital) is merely the increasing complexity of the universe becoming aware of itself--in other words: Us. And any other sapient species in the universe.

My descent from theism to atheism briefly paused in an epiphenomenalist stage that could have been described in that manner.

Ultimately I rejected it as adding my own meaning to the noise merely because I didn't understand it. I still chuckle at this foam on the beer of the universe idea every time I drink a frosty cold adult beverage.

[QUOTE=chappy;378638]You mean possessive form of a plural pronoun. However, in English it is nearly universally only used as an adjective. :) And perhaps ESL ruins the joke. [/QUOTE]

No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke

[QUOTE=axn;378641]No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke[/QUOTE]

In current "gender-identity-speak" 'they' and 'their' are used as gender neutral pronouns. This bothers me, having grown up in a grammar-nazi household, in which such number-mismatches (plural pronoun applied to an individual) were not tolerated.

However, I'd rather be uncomfortable about that, than use some of the constructed alternative words.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_solutions[/url]

[QUOTE=axn;378641]No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke[/QUOTE]

So does IT describe GOD? If so, that would mean "god" is an it,
hence not a (human) HE or SHE. That is, if "it" exists at all.
Many would be offended by such a reference as "it" applied to
their (adjective) origin-figure. Even using "She" upsets some.
Not here though. This forum is very open-minded.

[QUOTE=chappy;378638]...
My descent from theism to atheism briefly paused in an epiphenomenalist stage that could have been described in that manner.
...
[/QUOTE]

I think that direction of realization (theism to atheism) is more an
ascent to the higher truth than a descent. A descent from what?
Perhaps from something more basic? It isn't.

It's a deity thing, we wouldn't understand.

[QUOTE=chappy;379157]It's a deity thing, we wouldn't understand.[/QUOTE]

You understood before I did, so thanks.

I've been atheist for so long, it didn't occur to me "deity" could be
a "higher" concept. No offense to any "deists" reading this.

[QUOTE=davar55;379202]You understood before I did, so thanks.

I've been atheist for so long, it didn't occur to me "deity" could be a "higher" concept. No offense to any "deists" reading this.[/QUOTE]For an interesting take on the nature of deity, take a look at links contained in [url]http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45b177d3ef3b1[/url]

A variant of Clarke's 3[sup]rd[/sup] Law is that god[s] can be implemented with a sufficiently high level of technology.

[YOUTUBE]5joYY3VrBtM[/YOUTUBE]

Let's put the whole thing to the test!

There is some justice after all!
 

[QUOTE=chappy;379279][YOUTUBE]5joYY3VrBtM[/YOUTUBE]

Let's put the whole thing to the test![/QUOTE]

A right wing religious nut case has openly admitted leaving a bible
"for people to read" in a place where pushing one's religion on others
is forbidden by law.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/jeffrey-fowle-north-korea_n_5643464.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl37%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D510437[/url]

North Korea can get something right!

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379666]A right wing religious nut case has openly admitted leaving a bible "for people to read" in a place where pushing one's religion on others is forbidden by law.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/jeffrey-fowle-north-korea_n_5643464.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl37%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D510437[/url]

North Korea can get something right![/QUOTE]While I agree with your observation on North Korea, I'm prepared to argue the case on your first assertion.

In my view, there's a big difference between leaving something for others to choose to access and pushing a product. At the most it could be regarded as creating an attractive nuisance (I believe that's the American jargon) and one should perhaps leave a bible in places where it is likely to be accessed only be responsible adults.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. Neither am I a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or Hindu for that matter. I have talked with representatives of each of those faiths and have read at least a little of each of their religious books.

Added in edit: I distinguish "Mormon" from "Christian" because the former (apparently uniquely as far as I know) claim to have revealed-scripture additional to the bible shared with other Christian sects.

[QUOTE=xilman;379675]While I agree with your observation on North Korea, I'm prepared to argue the case on your first assertion.

In my view, there's a big difference between leaving something for others to choose to access and pushing a product. At the most it could be regarded as creating an attractive nuisance (I believe that's the American jargon) and one should perhaps leave a bible in places where it is likely to be accessed only be responsible adults.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. Neither am I a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or Hindu for that matter. I have talked with representatives of each of those faiths and have read at least a little of each of their religious books.

Added in edit: I distinguish "Mormon" from "Christian" because the former (apparently uniquely as far as I know) claim to have revealed-scripture additional to the bible shared with other Christian sects.[/QUOTE]

In this case, by the accused own admission he was trying to convey
Christianity to the North Koreans. I can not prove, but strongly suspect that
in private the accused would refer to them as "heathens". I think it is
clear that he was trying to push Christianity in a place where it is not welcome.

Some atheists (and some theists and some agnostics) can get along
with their opposites (and of course some can't). But only so long as
they either tolerate major differences of opinion or keep quiet.
It's in the political or public grround where one can't keep silent about
the implications of one's concepts of essential beingness, and more
importantly about the implications (which one considers errors) of one's
opposite's opinions. Religious tolerance is important, though it is simply
not possiblee to tolerate certain points of view.

But this thread is about non-pedanticism, and atheism, so I respectfully
stop here.

[QUOTE=davar55;379928]It's in the political or public grround where one can't keep silent about the implications of one's concepts of essential beingness, and more
importantly about the implications (which one considers errors) of one's
opposite's opinions.[/QUOTE]Please justify that statement.

It is far from clear to me that one can't keep silent in such a situation.

[QUOTE=xilman;379960]Please justify that statement.

It is far from clear to me that one can't keep silent in such a situation.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it should have been "mustn't" keep silent, since of
course one "can". I was referring to the "marketplace of ideas"
when we're free or the "public curb" when we're not. It's
imperative for the better ideas to be propounded, or the
negatives will win out.

[QUOTE=chappy;379279][YOUTUBE]5joYY3VrBtM[/YOUTUBE]

Let's put the whole thing to the test![/QUOTE]
This video is, at the very least, disingenuous(possibly unintentionally) and, at worst, a straight up intentional lie.

Assuming you've already watched the video, let's consider alternate universes. In one universe, every cut or scrape means a long drawn out death from infection. In the other universe, dramaticly fast healing(compared to this universe) is simply the way things are.

Both universes would have people that (1) Considered God an awesome and benevolent being, and (2) people that either consider God to be evil or nonexistent.

If God continued to give us a perfect world after we'd sinned, what's the point of repentance. It's not about whether God is good or evil, it's about our own choice as to which way to go in our lives.

As my Grandma loved to say, "Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy." This usually seemed to be an indication that she felt she had suffered some grievous slight, and was laying heavy guilt rays on her targets.

In this case it means, "Here we go again..."

[QUOTE=kladner;380111]As my Grandma loved to say, "Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy." This usually seemed to be an indication that she felt she had suffered some grievous slight, and was laying heavy guilt rays on her targets.

In this case it means, "Here we go again..."[/QUOTE]

Nah. That kind of illogical "analysis" can't be maintained for long.

[QUOTE=jasong;380106]This video is, at the very least, [STRIKE]disingenuous[/STRIKE] [COLOR="Red"]humorous[/COLOR] (possibly unintentionally) and, at worst, a straight up [STRIKE]intentional lie[/STRIKE] [COLOR="Red"]humorous video[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

Fixed some spelling errors for you.

[QUOTE=jasong;380106]Assuming you've already watched the video, let's consider alternate universes. In one universe, every cut or scrape means a long drawn out death from infection. In the other universe, dramaticly fast healing(compared to this universe) is simply the way things are.[/QUOTE]

These are not opposites. But, I'll allow it. I want to see where this is going.


[QUOTE=jasong;380106]Both universes would have people that (1) Considered God an awesome and benevolent being, and (2) people that either consider God to be evil or nonexistent.[/QUOTE]

Again you are using non-polar pairs. I've given you a lot of leeway councilor, please get to your point.

[QUOTE=jasong;380106]
If God continued to give us a perfect world after we'd sinned, what's the point of repentance. It's not about whether God is good or evil, it's about our own choice as to which way to go in our lives.[/QUOTE]

Now I'm confused. Your argument seems to be missing a few steps. And what was the point of the earlier digressions involving healing mechanisms and the vast range of potential belief systems whittled down to just two potential groups?

1) You make an assumption that God at one time gave us a perfect world. There is no evidence for this outside of one of the many competing ancient belief systems.

2) You make an assumption that sinning is a concept that we agree is meaningful.

3) You make the wrong argument that a person who is given a perfect world can't still be repentant of the sin. This is the crux of why your argument, which is common to Christians everywhere, is so nonsensical. A person who makes the right choices in the absence of punishment is at least as moral as someone who makes the right choices because of punishment. Most people, myself included, would argue that they are more moral. The God punishes us because we sin motif robs us of the ability to achieve the higher moral status of doing good merely because it is good and not because there might be fear of punishment. (see my post in another area in this forum about how some Christians need to stop feeding on 3rd grade Sunday school morality tales and grow up.)

4) It is [B]ALL[/B] about whether God is good or evil. If she is good then she's terrible at engineering. And terrible at psychology. And terrible at a host of other endeavors.
And if she is evil, then she isn't worth my time or effort to worship.

So we KNOW She's not good.
That settles it for me.

[QUOTE=davar55;380123]So we KNOW She's not good.
That settles it for me.[/QUOTE]

I mean, if a She God is not good, there's no hope for a he God.

So we spend a lot of time pedantically in this thread, talking about things like the bible and stuff, but what evidence do we have that we are qualified to talk about these things?

I mean, some of us read these books years ago. Others never even read them. So perhaps one of those silly Facebook type quizzes will be able to shine some light upon our understanding of the biblical texts that we often discuss:

[url]http://exchristian.net/3/[/url]

is a simple 20 question test with all the textual references that hits many of the major points of the gospel narrative. Maybe we should verify that we know the subject before we discuss it any further.

[QUOTE][url]http://exchristian.net/3/[/url]

is a simple 20 question test with all the textual references that hits many of the major points of the gospel narrative. Maybe we should verify that we know the subject before we discuss it any further.[/QUOTE]Nice!

:ttu:

Priceless! [SPOILER]Hint: Take the quiz at least twice![/SPOILER]

Took the quiz. Ignored the pattern of choices that developed.

[spoiler]
Got literally a perfect score - zero! Ranked as clueless.

Even though I personally think even an atheist should be somewhat
familiar with the details of some religion or other, I can't say I'm not
proud to have gotten all 20 questions. Wrong. And honestly I was
not trying to get them all wrong.

(I am guessing from the above ^^ that whatever I answered for each
question would have been wrong, by a different reference. I just
can't do this twice. If so, clever site.)
[/spoiler]

[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclusive-deity-hasnt-written-a-new-book-in-2000-y,36936/[/url]

He actually kills off more people than GRR Martin. But doesn't get the credit for it these days.

[QUOTE=chappy;383250][URL]http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclusive-deity-hasnt-written-a-new-book-in-2000-y,36936/[/URL]

He actually kills off more people than GRR Martin. But doesn't get the credit for it these days.[/QUOTE]

That vengeful tendency probably was inherited from his divine predecessor, the Chimpanzee god.

[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/biologists-confirm-god-evolved-from-chimpanzee-dei,35755/[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;383250][URL]http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclusive-deity-hasnt-written-a-new-book-in-2000-y,36936/[/URL]

He actually kills off more people than GRR Martin. But doesn't get the credit for it these days.[/QUOTE]

Because he's on the lam and there are no most wanted posters?

How many names does their God have?

[QUOTE=davar55;384177]How many names does their God have?[/QUOTE]

I should have posted the list (I don't really have one).
I understand it might be 9,000,000,000.

:smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;384177]How many names does their God have?[/QUOTE]

In the GRR Martin world, there are Seven Gods, and one has [U]many[/U] names.

[QUOTE=kladner;384295]In the GRR Martin world, there are Seven Gods, and one has [U]many[/U] names.[/QUOTE]

So if we add the number of names in that fictional world
to the number in the real, actual, non-supernatural
world (I estimate that as some integer in the range ( minus one, plus one ) ),
do we get 9,000,000,000 ?

[QUOTE=davar55;384303]So if we add the number of names in that fictional world
to the number in the real, actual, non-supernatural
world (I estimate that as some integer in the range
[ minus one, plus one ] ), do we get 9,000,000,000 ?[/QUOTE]

Nobody can know all the names of The Stranger.

[url]http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/The_Stranger[/url]

A list. A list. My kingdom for a list.

:smile:

Well, if I can't get a list of names of God for my kingdom,
can someone send at least a few and I'll phylum?

[QUOTE=davar55;384803]Well, if I can't get a list of names of God for my kingdom,
can someone send at least a few and I'll phylum?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to bring about the end of the universe by compiling All the Names? I read a story like that, where computer engineers assisted some Tibetan sect with their quest. The IT guys speculate about getting out of town before the computer run ends, and it becomes clear that it did not work.

The last line is approximately, "Overhead, the stars were quietly going out."

[QUOTE=kladner;384824]Are you trying to bring about the end of the universe by compiling All the Names? I read a story like that, where computer engineers assisted some Tibetan sect with their quest. The IT guys speculate about getting out of town before the computer run ends, and it becomes clear that it did not work.

The last line is approximately, "Overhead, the stars were quietly going out."[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41108[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;384827][URL]http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41108[/URL][/QUOTE]

Wow, thanks! Arthur Clarke, no less!