bcspace wrote: Since we are dealing with religion here, that 'God said it' is a perfectly cromulent argument (so long as you show where God said it as I have done).
There truly is nothing more to offer the athiest except the fact that the existence of God is testable from the Christian perspective (John 7:17). Problem is, few atheists have the gumption to test it and many who do have it confirmed to them fall prey to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13).
One could also ask why an athiest has so much interest in posting on a religious board. Most answers to that question I've seen prove athiesim to be a religion.
A couple of things:
I'm not an atheist.
Kudos for the Simpsons reference. You've embiggened the discussion.
Thanks again for your ethereal quips and comebacks. They are most unenlightening. Could you please read the Book of Mormon before the end of the year and quote us your favorite scriputre, too?
Spoken like a true dilettant.
One of the main reasons homosexual marriage should not be recognized by the state.
I agree. Marriage should not be recognized by the state. Let religioun define what marriage and let individual people decide what relationships they wish to recognize as special or not.
I have no problem with that. However, I also have no problem with the state recognizing and encouraging the ideal as it benefits society.
But let the state afford the same opportunity to all people for things like health, properthy etc.
The state already does this without the recognition of homosexual marriage.
Not at all. There is a proper role model in this case because she has not engaged in a homosexual relationship.
That appears to be a circular argument. Homosexuality is wrong because homosexuality is wrong.
I made no statement or implication here as to why homosexuality is wrong (except to agree with the role model problem).
bcspace wrote: Since we are dealing with religion here, that 'God said it' is a perfectly cromulent argument (so long as you show where God said it as I have done).
There truly is nothing more to offer the athiest except the fact that the existence of God is testable from the Christian perspective (John 7:17). Problem is, few atheists have the gumption to test it and many who do have it confirmed to them fall prey to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13).
One could also ask why an athiest has so much interest in posting on a religious board. Most answers to that question I've seen prove athiesim to be a religion.
A couple of things:
I'm not an atheist.
Kudos for the Simpsons reference. You've embiggened the discussion.
Now we're into a superstantial discussion. (Stephen Colbert)
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Since we are dealing with religion here, that 'God said it' is a perfectly cromulent argument (so long as you show where God said it as I have done).
There truly is nothing more to offer the athiest except the fact that the existence of God is testable from the Christian perspective (John 7:17). Problem is, few atheists have the gumption to test it and many who do have it confirmed to them fall prey to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13).
One could also ask why an athiest has so much interest in posting on a religious board. Most answers to that question I've seen prove athiesim to be a religion.
A couple of things:
I'm not an atheist.
Excellent. Yet the argument I was responding to was an atheistic one.
Kudos for the Simpsons reference. You've embiggened the discussion.
LOL! Perhaps I'll find a way work in some Bill and Ted too.
Excellent. Yet the argument I was responding to was an atheistic one.
No it wasn't. It was an attempt to avoid debate by calling on an ultimate authority.
You don't know anything about the authenticty of the biblical quotes, you don't know anything about the God you're using as your ultimate authority independent of the biblical quotes and you can't produce an argument that Nephi's reasoning is sound.
Your response was not to rebut an atheist's notion that you're just relying on MagicMan to win debates...but to avoid having to make a case for what defines "true happiness".
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Excellent. Yet the argument I was responding to was an atheistic one.
No it wasn't. It was an attempt to avoid debate by calling on an ultimate authority.
You don't know anything about the authenticty of the biblical quotes, you don't know anything about the God you're using as your ultimate authority independent of the biblical quotes and you can't produce an argument that Nephi's reasoning is sound.
Your response was not to rebut an atheist's notion that you're just relying on MagicMan to win debates...but to avoid having Old Testament make a case for what defines "true happiness".
I think it would be interesting if people of faith actually looked at the morality behind the things they take for granted. I suppose a case could be made for homosexuality's being problematic for the species, but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.
Runtu wrote:but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.
Why not? I don't have a problem with Jews saying that God forbids the consumption of pork. I only have a problem if they try to outlaw pork to make me follow those convictions which do not have any basis other than "God said so".
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.
Why not? I don't have a problem with Jews saying that God forbids the consumption of pork. I only have a problem if they try to outlaw pork to make me follow those convictions which do not have any basis other than "God said so".
I'm not saying I have a problem with your position. If you believe it, that's cool. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, and I respected their abstaining from pork and shellfish and other things, and they respected my abstaining from coffee, etc.
Note that I said it's not a particularly moral stance. It's not an "immoral" stance, either. I guess what I'm saying is that, as a father, I want my kids to learn to do things because there are good, moral reasons for doing them, not just because "Dad said so." That's how I feel about religion, too. Sometimes, "Dad said so" is as good as it's going to get.
Runtu wrote:but "God said so" doesn't strike me as a particularly moral stance.
Why not? I don't have a problem with Jews saying that God forbids the consumption of pork. I only have a problem if they try to outlaw pork to make me follow those convictions which do not have any basis other than "God said so".
I agree that it can be a moral stance while not necessarily being a logical one.
When I have to hold up a higher authority as my moral justification that I am not willing (or able) to allow interlocutors to examine, how logical is that?
Isn't it a little presumptous of bcs to dismiss "my happiness" as inferior, transient, ethereal, impure, ungodly because he's got Joseph who purports to have translated Nephi's story who is speaking for god?
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.