The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

1. You have stated, "The Church stands or falls on certain propisitions but not on all propisitions." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21389&start=84 Please list the propositions on which the Church stands or falls.

2. Please specify what, if anything, Joseph Smith could have done that would make him cease to be a prophet.

3. Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book. You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to. A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story. Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

4. There is no conclusive proof that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have a homosexual relationship. Since this proposition has not been conclusively proven to be false, why shouldn't critics of the Church believe that it happened?

[_Tarski]

This pedantry about being agnostic as opposed to atheist is a bit silly isn't it?

Are you all cautiously agnostic about leprechauns, giants, and Greek gods? (Stem???)

Is the position that there are no invisible planets made of pure love just as indefensible as the positive claim that there are such?


Give me a non-BS definition of "God" that is clear enough to work with and I will explain to you why the corresponding atheism is more rational than belief if it isn't already obvious.

[_DarkHelmet]

If Stemelbow feels that I cannot say 'There is no Santa' without having to prove the proposition, most people would say that his thinking was, shall we say, a little bizarre. So why cannot someone say "There are no deities" on the same basis?

There is more evidence for Santa than there is for Mormonism.

[_Chap]

If Stemelbow feels that I cannot say 'There is no Santa' without having to prove the proposition, most people would say that his thinking was, shall we say, a little bizarre. So why cannot someone say "There are no deities" on the same basis?

There is more evidence for Santa than there is for Mormonism.

You have a point. I used to get a lot of stuff from him.

[_Themis]

Michael Shermer on atheism:

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling.

Not a surprise that you would. Atheism is not about disproving God. It's about disbelief based on lack of evidence. This is a tenable position and one you use to disbelieve a host of beliefs and claims made throughout the world. Sure some atheists can be dogmatic about it like many theists, but most will not say their absolutely is no God/s. I should state since many will get the wrong idea that I am not atheist, but maybe agnostic with atheist leanings, if that is a better way of describing it.

If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it.

This seems to be a topic you have never really understood. The burden of proof is on those making any position. This may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God.

I agree that some can be to absolute, but that does not make disbelief untenable. You do it all the time for many beliefs and claims being made religious or not.

As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence.

It depends on what claims are being made about God, but in the most general terms the existence of God cannot be dis-proven, but so what.

The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable.

Which beliefs are we saying are untenable? The ones you have or the ones you don't have and think like other atheists are also untenable. :)

The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.

Although I can't find anyone inside the church or out that defines faith quite the same way you do, yes believers consider their spiritual experiences as evidence of their beliefs and God in general. Interesting that many of those beliefs conflict and cannot all be true, and that many in the church no longer view their spiritual experiences as coming from God. Verifiable scientific methods actually are very helpful with many religious claims, because many claims can be verified through scientific methods.

by the way You are actually the one being hypocritical.

This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders.

Lost of people whine on both sides. You are again being hypocritical, since you tend to be one of the biggest whiners here.

The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church.

I don't think most here are complaining that believers are critiquing a critique. Only that they may not be backing up the critique with evidnece. This is seen with your possibility game that does not actually show a critique of LDS claims to be incorrect. You are not supporting an LDS position by creating other possibilities that are not even plausible, and even if they are, you are not presenting evidence much of the time that would counter the evidence presented that shows a certain critical plausibility to be the most likely.

The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.

The position is that there is plenty of evidence that shows LDS truth claims are not accurate.

[_Buffalo]

I would never say that for sure there are no gods anywhere in the universe.

I can say for sure, however, that the particular gods Yahweh and El are fictitious.

[_brade]

Michael Shermer on atheism:

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling.

Not a surprise that you would. Atheism is not about disproving God. It's about disbelief based on lack of evidence. This is a tenable position and one you use to disbelieve a host of beliefs and claims made throughout the world. Sure some atheists can be dogmatic about it like many theists, but most will not say their absolutely is no God/s. I should state since many will get the wrong idea that I am not atheist, but maybe agnostic with atheist leanings, if that is a better way of describing it.

This, stem. It's fine if you want to kick against the dogmatic atheists. Be my guest. I no longer believe the vast majority of religious claims, in particular claims about gods, but I don't endorse the sort of atheist position you're arguing against, and I'm willing to bet that most self-described atheists, particularly academic atheists, don't either. But, continue. Hell, as a sort of atheist myself I might join you in your crusade against the atheist position you're attacking here.

[_Buffalo]

Crickets from Stem now. :o

[_Sophocles]

Stem,

Are you familiar with the Nolan chart? It's not a perfect analog but it illustrates that a person's political beliefs are often not adequately summarized by a single label or platform. It's not just that some people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others, but that there is a whole other dimension which the liberal/conservative spectrum does not address. For example, libertarian is not a point on the spectrum between liberal and conservative, but part of another spectrum altogether.

Likewise, contrary to popular usage, agnosticism is not a point on the spectrum between theism and atheism, a kind of middle position or "I don't know" stance. It's part of a completely different dimension measuring something else entirely. To my ears, a statement like "All you atheists should be calling yourselves agnostics instead" sounds as meaningless as "All you liberals should be calling yourselves vegetarians instead." Because they are wholly different identities, it's entirely possible to be both (along with many other things as well) and which one you use depends on what you happen to be talking about at the time.

I am an atheist because I am not a theist. I don't believe in gods just like I don't believe in angels, demons, leprechauns, unicorns, astrology, alchemy, etc. If there were words for people who don't believe in those things, I would identify as those words as well. But there aren't astrologists, "a-astrologists," and everybody else. There are simply astrologists and everybody else, and if it ever became necessary to refer to everyone who is not an astrologist as a group, then we might come up with a word such as a-astrologist to describe them (us). But it's not like a-astrology describes a particular anti-astrology belief that astrology cannot be true, and bears the burden to prove it.

Agnosticism is a whole other deal. All those things I listed above that I don't believe in--I am agnostic toward them as well. I don't claim any particular knowledge that gods, angels, demons, and fairies don't exist. For all I know, they do. I just haven't encountered any compelling evidence of any of those things yet. That's why I don't believe in them.

I've found most atheists to also be agnostic, because belief in certain knowledge outside of rational, material means like the scientific method (viz., gnosticism) seems to go hand in hand with religion, though not always. Believers in gods also tend to believe that they have special knowledge or experience of their existence, and nonbelievers in gods also tend not to believe that they have any special knowledge or experience with their nonexistence, though there are exceptions on both sides.

[_Some Schmo]

Hi SS (Merry Christmas to you and yours, friend)

(Buffalo, thanks for your above comment as well. Understood!)

This has been pointed out many times before, but just for reinforcement, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

Yea, I think that is fair (I wonder if we all don't share at least some degree or shades of agnostic on our self portraits?)

I'm sure I've made a comment like this to you personally before.

It's actually quite remarkable that religious types think they are. Hmmm... I wonder why...

Hmmmmm?
If you would have stopped typing before this! What could have been?

Ambiguity is what could have been, since my second comment was really the point of my post in the first place. I mean, we've had this exact chat before, and yet you made a comment like that never happened. Makes me wonder if you forgot or wanted to ignore it.

Just sayin' man.