My regular readers know how much I like to argue and debate. Perhaps this is also why I so enjoy when door-to-door missionaries come knocking on my door whether it’s Mormons or Jehovah’s witnesses. The other day LDS missionaries who had come once before while I wasn’t home returned. They were two bright-eyed young women who I could tell were excited to talk about Jesus and the Book of Mormon. I explained I was a Christian and I was also familiar with the Church of Latter-Day Saints which they were actually glad to hear. I’d like to recap our discussion since I think it was productive — not at all like I thought it would go. Just one of them, Sister [Jane], did all the talking.
Now, I already know that Mormons place a great deal of weight on what they believe to be the Holy Spirit’s confirmation of their beliefs, so I knew exactly where I was going to go with the discussion. Before diving in I wanted to be sure they’d be OK with me asking some questions of them and some of their beliefs, and she assured me they’d love to answer anything they could.
The first thing I wanted to stress was that I was perfectly OK with them trying to convert me and that I wasn’t offended in the least. “After all, if Mormonism is true, I should believe it, right?” I said. I also wanted to set the foundation that either Mormonism is true or it isn’t, that it’s not a subjective truth. “If Mormonism is true and Smith were a true prophet, it’s true whether I believe it or not”, and they gladly agreed. This was essential to where I wanted the discussion to go. Next I explained that regardless of each of our feelings about Smith’s prophetic claims, they are either true or false, and our feelings can’t guarantee our beliefs are true no matter how sincerely we hold them. I gave an example of a rake in my garage. There’s either one in the garage or there isn’t and our feelings aren’t going to change whether there’s one there or not. So in order to determine whether a claim is true we have to look to something outside our feelings — to something tangible. We need evidences. Surprisingly they both agreed.
So now that I had laid a foundation that things are either true or false and our feelings are irrelevant in the matter, I could begin to examine Joseph Smith and some of his claims. Much to my surprise, Sister [Jane] readily admitted that there were many Gods. Jesus, Elohim (the Father), Elohim’s God from before, etc. into eternity past. Even more surprising, she admitted the Mormon teaching that Elohim is a Man-God made of flesh and bone. This usually is avoided — but I digress. So when she was done acknowledging the existence of many Gods, a teaching of Smith, I asked how we adjudicate between the Bible and Smith when there is conflict in teaching, which she struggled with, so I moved into my first attempt to undermine Smith: Mormon henotheism. I brought up these verses:
Isaiah 43:10: “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.”
Isaiah 44:6, 8: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. […]‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’”
These were verses she had not considered before. I didn’t harp on the issue because I didn’t want them to feel cornered or defensive. So I said, “it’s just something to think about”.
Next was the Book of Abraham. She was familiar with the book, and even had a copy with her. The book she was carrying contained the Joseph Smith King James Bible, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants all under one cover. I was curious if she knew what the Book of Abraham said and when it was “translated”. She told me what the Mormon understanding was, i.e., writings of Abraham.
It was at this point that I told her why it was difficult to trust Smith and the Book of Mormon. Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham in a similar fashion as the Book of Mormon, an important detail. Smith translated the Book of Abraham before Egyptian hieroglyphics were widely understood. Eventually Egyptologists had correctly translated the document and determined it to be common funerary texts — nothing close to Smith’s rendering.
“This”, I said, “should give you great pause in trusting Smith. If he translated the Book of Abraham with the help of Elohim, and also the Book of Mormon, and he got that one so wrong, why should I trust him?”
I could tell the wheels were turning. She pulled out a note pad and asked me to repeat the Isaiah verses and also noted to look into the Book of Abraham. I could tell she had been confronted with information and reasoning she had not considered before.
I told them I didn’t want to inundate them too greatly and I asked if they’d return after looking into some things more closely. “Oh, we’re definitely coming back” she said. I thanked them for taking the time to hear me out, and that it was quite commendable that they did. Jehovah’s Witnesses on the other hand would have excused themselves as soon as they recognized what I was doing. When they do return, I plan to discuss the problem of salvation in the LDS Church.
Sifting Reality 
You don’t see the irony?
You’d have to be more specific. Blanket implications don’t prove anything.
It’s not an implication, I just think it’s funny. You apply the evidence rule to them and one part of a theory but not to yourself and the part of the theory you both agree on.
I think its sad that you think I don’t and havent. It was only after looming into it that I became a christian. Under the about tab there’s a link to a post about how I became a christian
Not only that, there is nothing theologically that Mormons and I agree on. That in itself shows you don’t k ow as much as you believe you do about either Christianity or mormonism
Have you considered what’s behind religion? The model that’s used and how those thought models are parallels of each other?
John,
Speaking as an ex-Mormon, I’d say you did a great job! Keep up the good work.
Yes there is, you both believe in the divinity of Jesus and refer to the bible as “truth”.
Pink
Here is where you put on display your ignorance. Mormons believe Jesus is one of many gods, Lucifer’s spirit brother, who has not always existed. Christians believe Jesus is THE God of the universe, the second person of the trinity who has existed eternally. They are not the same Jesus.
Wanna try again?
Ummm, both believe in Jesus being a god. Whther it’s one or many doesn’t change that you both believe in that one.
I wrote something today with you in mind: http://pinkagendist.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/is-your-religion-sold-on-qvc-how-to-start-your-own-monotheistic-cult/
You are simply mistaken if you think the same individual can have radically different attributes and be the same. If I said I knew you, I say youre 6 feet tall work as a teacher in Chicago and is married with 2 kids, am I talking about you? I say its you.
You’re in the same category. In fact you’re much closer to Mormons than to people like me. Your category is even refined. It’s not just about magical thinking, it’s specific magical thinking in the same thought patterns as Mormons.
You’re just employing hyper reduction in order to make the two alike. Its like saying a particular man is more like a grizzly bear than you because they both have brown eyes and you have blue.
Not at all.
Both use exactly the same tactics to control their followers. Both tell followers that they’re über-special as opposed to non-believers who are heathens. That if you don’t follow a very specific set of rules you’re not going to heaven. That non-believers will criticize them. Both feed on a false persecution complex; Both attach words like truth, law and natural to their ideologies to give them more credence…
Both use exactly the same model of con-job to propagate themselves and reproduce, just like viruses and protection rackets.
I’ve never been to a church that taught any of that. Its your interpretation of a conflation of different religions. Over generalizing and over presuming doesn’t serve you well on this issue.
Sounds like the new atheists.
Not really. Could you clarify which of the points I referenced doesn’t apply to your religion?
Christianity teaches that we are all sinners and that it is by the grace of God that we are saved. We aren’t uber-special at all, we all deserve punishment.
You can’t earn your way to heaven by following rules.
Non-believers do criticize Christians, they refer to God in derogatory terms and mock believers.
I have never been to a church where we are taught a false persecution complex. In fact a new study has documented over 600 instances over the last few years of hostility toward religion where people had to sue in court to have their rights observed.
Truth, law, and natural are accurate terms. You’d have to argue specific instances where they were misused. Asserting isnt good enough.
By over generalizing you have created strawmen, I know how much you hate fallacies which is why I’m surprised to see you use one.
You just keep telling yourself that… LOL
Atheists are the ones who believe in magical thinking. The universe appeared by magic. Life appeared by magic. Some unknown power called “natural selection” designed and developed lifeforms and determined how to change one life form into another. Yep, very rational.
As John has pointed out, saying Mormons and Christians have similar belief systems is like saying Osama Bin Laden and Mother Theresa had similar belief systems. The two are as dissimilar as it gets. Mormons redefine Christ and God the way homosexualists redefine marriage.
You’ve confused scientists and atheists. Some scientists put forth theories about the beginning of the world. Atheists simply disbelieve god theories presented thus far.
Every Christian denomination redefines “Christ” and what he allegedly wants people to do… including your sect/cult.
PINK
please be specific, how have I redefined Jesus? Or was that another broad speculation, a dig at me.
Each cult defines him and what he “wants” in its own way. You’re one of 38,000 cults.
And to Mormons the bible is true only as far as its properly translated. It is subjugated to joseph smith and the other Mormon scriptures. Christians believe the bible is the word of God second to none. Wanna try again?
You’re all variations, sects born from the same mythology. Some groups just spiced up their mythology more than others.
The reliance on revelation is important. Christians have John 3:16 and Mormons have Moroni 10:3-5 “… And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the truth of all things”. You make a good point about how the translations are utter fabrications, but it doesn’t stop other Christians from accepting the Flood, Exodus, or Creation, which are also patently false.
I like to ask them why ‘latter days’ – no prophets from Jesus to Smith. I got the answer once that the Middle Ages were “too dangerous”. Considering Jesus was murdered and Smith was shot to death after be chased across the country by angry mobs, I have to hope they have a better answer for that one as well…
They do readily admit the polytheism. I occasionally go to mormon.org to their chat functionality where you can talk to missionaries any time. I like to get the ‘official version’ from them. They readily admit that they are polytheists.
The Bible/Smith contradictions are also easily resolved. It’s an improvement/evolution in the Mormon dogma. They’ve resolved many of the contradictions and bad ethics in the Bible by giving the President of the church a direct line to God. The President speaks to God and passes on his teachings through the Pearl and Doctrine publications. That’s who polygamy was restricted and blacks were accepted. The Catholics don’t have this problem either. At a debate, a Catholic was asked which authority was higher, the Bible or the Church. He rightfully pointed out that the Bible was compiled by the Church, and from that basis concluded that the Church must be the higher authority. Similarly, Mormon Presidents occasionally resolve Biblical contradictions and problems with “ex cathedra” edicts.
Mormons have developed a fascinating theology and a powerful social structure from what was originally a laughably-transparent con job.
So because each assert the existence of at least one deity and have beliefs about salvation/exaltation they are basically the same? You should be able to see how far of a stretch that is–if you are making the same claim Pink is. But it didn’t seem like it. Just looking to see if you are making the same leap
“…Flood, Exodus, or Creation, which are also patently false.”
Sez you. Where is your proof? If you are going to go with the “the onus is on you to prove it happened”, then you can’t say any of it is “patently false” until it is proven false. You are simply making a different truth claim that you are unable to prove. It is your belief that these events didn’t occur, but it is not honest to say they are “patently false”. If you had said that you have not seen evidence for these events, or that the laws of nature and physics suggest they couldn’t have happened, that would be one thing. But, as I’ve said, you’ve made a truth claim that demands proof.
I thought this was particularly amusing: “In fact a new study has documented over 600 instances over the last few years of hostility toward religion where people had to sue in court to have their rights observed.”
Do you have any idea of how many times religionists are hostile towards people who don’t bow down to your imaginary authority?
My. oh. my. If people don’t say Merry Christmas, or agree with your views on something, it’s an “attack” on your religion. And then you pervert logic by saying that if you’re not allowed to impose your religious tenets on all of society you’re the ones being persecuted. If you’re not allowed to tell gay people how they MUST live their lives, you’re being persecuted? That’s a false persecution complex.
I call the fallacy that Pink fell into as the reductionist fallacy. He reduces two things down to something they have in common and then makes a moral judgment in equating them. This is often a tactic of the left and why it is hard to nail Jell-O to the wall.
I addressed Mormonism in an article http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/counterfeit-christianity/
Mormonism is as different from Christianity as secular humanism is from Christianity. In fact Mormonism has more in common with Islam and secular humanism than with Christianity.
You deny that Mormons can use the Holy Spirit to validate their faith. Does that mean you don’t think other Christians can use it either? If you say no, why does the latter group receive preferential treatment?
Tafacory,
Only true Christians have the Holy Spirit. Mormons are idolaters, worshiping a false God, and therefore have no access to the Holy Spirit. Mormons are not Christian – simple as that.
Mormons are not christian by either christian definition or by joseph Smith’s definition, so use of the term ‘other’ Christians is misplaced. The point is we don’t confirm whether our theological convictions are true by appealing to our feelings. This is how Mormons are conditioned to believe Mormonism is true. Its an inherently unreliable method for determining truth.
@ Pink,
“Do you have any idea of how many times religionists are hostile towards people who don’t bow down to your imaginary authority?”
I’d say not nearly as much as you like to tell yourself. More likely, the average Christian will feel sorrow for those who reject God. I know I do.
You bring up “Merry Christmas”. No one is saying that those who do not say it are attacking Christianity. But we do have a problem with the politically correct policies employed by businesses, governments and others to secularize the season out of some misplaced notion that some tiny, twisted minority claims to be offended, as well as with those who try to put forth the incredibly chuckleheaded notion that somehow the mere mention of the word “Christmas” is a breech of that mythical separation of church and state. Who is truly playing victim here?
It is the non-religious who like to pretend they forced to comply with religious doctrine. There is no effort by any Christian group, denomination, organization OR sect that seeks to force doctrine into laws the masses must obey. Not in this country. The reverse is true, as we see efforts to sue states and municipalities who had the gall to acknowledge the faith of their founders by including Christian images or words in their official seals.
“And then you pervert logic by saying that if you’re not allowed to impose your religious tenets on all of society you’re the ones being persecuted. If you’re not allowed
to tell gay people how they MUST live their lives, you’re being persecuted?”
No. But you’re perverting reality. It is not the Christian who is trying to impose anything. But the homosexual activist is without question trying to impose HIS religion on the rest of society, trying to change laws, definitions, traditions and even Scripture. Should anyone oppose this effort, expecting some rational reason for it, some example of scientific evidence that might support his position, he screams “homophobe” and plays victim. The Christian is the one standing ready with a host of arguments to defend the Christian perspective (which isn’t entirely religious regarding this issue). All the Christian gets for his troubles is vitriol and baseless accusations of hatred and bigotry. Who is truly playing the persecuted here?
I would also like to address this “38000” denomination angle. It is meaningless. Though there are a number of these that I would suggest are not truly Christian based on long established and understood essentials of the faith, such as those Mormon tenets already discussed, and others, such as non-Trinitarians, etc., most denominations are separated more by different ideas of how to run their churches, how rituals play out in their services, which sacraments are observed and a host of other incidentals. None of them separate the bulk of them for anything of importance and few waste time insisting no other denomination is heaven-bound. What’s more, some are included amongst the “38,000” simply because somewhere in their name or service the word “Christ” appears. That alone does not a Christian make.
Marshal,
You evidently don’t understand the difference between what is a freedom and what is an imposition.
Christians have always been free to follow their religion. They can get married according to their faith, they can not use birth control, they can pray, they can hang the ten commandments on their walls, they can not have gay friends, they can never attend a gay union ceremony, they never have to get gay married, they can avoid higher education and even pretend that creationism is in some how equivalent to evolution— but that’s not what Christians want.
Christians regularly try to use the law to enforce bans to force all of society to follow the tenets of their religion. They also want their religion to have some sort of “official status” by inserting it into government policy thereby impinging on everyone else’s freedom of religion.
Who is truly being persecuted? Those who don’t want to be forced to substitute their personal judgement for those of your cult’s interpretation of your religion.
We don’t care about your scripture, and we don’t have to, get over it.
Pink,
Lying again, are you?
It is atheists who want their religion enforced and not the other way around. Christians aren’t looking for any bans except banning the redefinition of marriage. No one has banned or even tried to ban homosexuals from marrying members of the opposite sex. We only want to ban redefining what marriage is. Atheists want to force a redefinition so it matches their religious viewpoints.
I’ve never seen any Christian seeking to force their tenets into government, yet the atheists want to remove any vestige of Christianity from the public view.
It is your religion forcing its tenets on the rest of society.
You say Christians aren’t looking for any bans then go on to mention just one of them- omitting the bans they’d also like on birth control, abortion and the limitations they’d like to impose on other religions (protesting the construction mosques etc.)
No one is trying to “re-define” Christian marriage. We want no part in your ridiculous mythological BS. But we also don’t want Christians to impose their definition of marriage on the government. The government gets to decide what its definition of marriage is all by itself.
We don’t care about your religion, we don’t want it in our lives. Deal with it.
Pinky is wrong again.
No one is seeking a ban on birth control. What Christians desire is not to be forced to pay for it. I haven’t seen anyone asking that birth control be banned. The point is, if you want birth control, pay for it yourself and don’t ask anyone else to pay for you. The best – and free – birth control is to not have sex.
The desire to ban abortions is just from Christians (and not all Christians seek total ban), rather it is from every rational person who thinks it heinous to murder a child in the womb.
The protesting against mosques being built has only been WHERE they want to put them. They wouldn’t want a shopping center there either. Try getting your facts straight.
And it the definition of “marriage” isn’t a “Christian” definition. It has be society’s definition for thousands of years.
We don’t want YOUR atheist religion in OUR lives. Deal with it.
Birth control ban suggestion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html
Each society, each culture, each decade- have different definitions of marriage.
We don’t want to share our atheism with you. You’re welcomed to believe in all the religious con-jobbery you like. We want to live our lives as we see fit without your intervention. That’s it. Unfortunately you feel the need to insert yourselves into the lives of other people and make yourselves the self-proclaimed genitalia police for the world at large.
In case you haven’t noticed, gays aren’t spending hundreds of millions to tell other citizens who they should or shouldn’t sleep with or marry- that’s the domain of self-righteous and downright selfish Christians who prefer to spend money on that than on actually helping their fellow human beings who certainly need it during an economic crisis.
Christians defend the actual definition of marriage and argue for the benefit to society to keep it as it is. Atheists and homosexual activists argue, without basis, that the definition should be altered to their personal satisfaction, as if it would have no affect whatsoever on the culture. The Christian position aligns with their faith but is not dependent upon it, as the arguments from Scripture are only a small part of the overall position. It is a part that is not necessary to the debate, except that the already established Constitutional right to express one’s faith, to live one’s faith and to pursue the happiness one’s faith might bring is compromised by the demands of the atheist and activist. But no ban is being sought.
Christians defend the right to life of the unborn due to the justified position that that right is already enumerated in our Constitution. Most abortions are unjustified and performed for selfish reasons of people who could have prevented the pregnancy through already proven methods, such as abstinence. Christians, and other honest people, understand that a mature understanding of sexuality, together with an honorable character clearly indicates that abortion is used by immature and irresponsible people of low character to abdicate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. In this case, engaging in the very activity designed to bring into existence another human being, but doing so expressly for sexual self-gratification, as if a pregnancy is not a real possibility. Christians, and other honest people, understand that killing one’s children is not birth control, but is really just killing one’s children.
By the way, there is no such thing as “Christian marriage”. There is only marriage. It is true that governments get to choose whether or not to abide the actual definition or to alter it into something less accurate and meaningful. Governments can dilute the definition of any word given enough support for doing so. But, in a representative republic, the legislative branch of our government is obliged to represent. Christians, and other honest people, have every right to petition the government to legislate in a manner that they believe is most beneficial to the nation and later generations. They have every right to block efforts by atheists and activists to impose their definitions on the rest of the nation.
You, Pink, don’t seem to understand the difference between liberty and when liberty is truly undermined or interfered with. Right now, anywhere in the United States, homosexuals can enter into committed relationships with anyone they want. They have no right, however, to demand that those relationships be recognized as if they are equal to the traditional definition of marriage. That is to say, they have the right to demand anything they like, but not the right to have those demands granted just because they demand them. The activist has yet to craft a compelling reason. (You are fortunate, however, that there are a number of people who don’t demand one, much to the nation’s misfortune.) The activist has no scientific basis for his demands. No argument from logic. No manner in which to make the case that his demands are rational. It is simply “We want” and the rest of us are supposed to dispense with logic, reason, thousands of years of tradition and understanding, AND our faith and then pretend you are put upon by bigotry and superstition. Sure. That makes sense.
Pink,
Can’t you accurately cite your own links? Santorum stated in the link that he was not calling for any such ban, but only that he believes each state has the right to decide such issues. Again, no suggestion of a ban that you’ve been able to find.
In case you haven’t noticed, homosexuals and groups devoted to their agenda have spent millions themselves for their self-righteous and totally and absolutely selfish demands. What’s more, Christians likely spend far more, FAR MORE, on actually helping their fellow human beings than have non-religious people, and that has been documented. (See Arthur C. Brooks)
To bolster marshalart’s point about Christians being far more generous, here is a study based on 2008 IRS records. Try this: http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/ and this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-religious-regions-give-more-to-charity-red-states-more-generous-than-blue/
Gays spend money to ensure gay families are protected from a legal standpoint. Christians spend money to ensure gay families have no legal protections.
Now there’s a great cause… right? Let’s spend millions so people who are different from us don’t have legal protections.
You people take disgusting to new levels.
Pink,
Christians do not spend money to keep anyone from having legal protections. “Gays” have all the legal protections as anyone else. That isn’t what they want. You want to redefine what marriage is. There is no legal right to redefine an institution.
Christians spend and have spent millions to insert themselves into other people’s lives.
There are whole groups spending millions just to spread hate, misinformation and incite homophobia.
Christian junk scientists like Paul Cameron have made their whole lives and careers out of committing fraud and feeding hatred: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/paul-cameron
splc does nothing but exaggerate. If youre getting your ideas as to what’s hate and discrimination from them, its no wonder why youre so hostile. They compare christians who merely support natural marriage to nazi’s by putting them in the same categories. Spare me.
-The American Family Association has an annual budget of US$14 million and owns 180 American Family Radio stations in 28 states
-Focus on the Family has a budget of approximately 150 million per year.
-Exodus International has an annual budget of 1 million per year (some of it used to whip up anti-gay sentiment in Uganda)
-Concerned Women for America operates with a 10 million per year budget
-Coral Ridge Ministries: 65 million per year
-The Family Research Council spends 14.2 million per year
They’ve been anti-gay since their inception. They were anti-gay long before there was a gay marriage debate. This “it’s about the word marriage” lie is a ridiculous cover-up.
They’ve been peddling fraudulent studies like those of ex-doctor Paul Cameron for decades.
They all opposed civil unions. They opposed the striking down of sodomy laws.
It’s not “about the word marriage”- it’s about exploiting fear, perpetuating ignorance and collecting money.
Add up all those figures up there. Now you see, all that money could be used to help the 1.6 million homeless children in America. It could be used to feed the hungry, it could be used to treat the ill, it could be used to offer better education to the poor, it could be used to research cancer, it could be used to improve people’s lives- but instead, it’s used to persecute gay people.
how much do you give to homeless centers, or food banks, or everything else you believe they should be doing with their money? The truth is they have a standard of morality you dont agree with and so you label them hate. All your crying victim is in vain. They arent in opposition to people, they are in opposition to behaviors. You conflate what you do with who you are, and that is why you’ll always feel like a victim. You need help.
They’re “in opposition” to other tax-paying citizen’s private sex lives. They want to insert themselves in other people’s sex lives.
That’s disgusting.
No one wants to insert themselves into other people’s sex lives. Liar. What we want is for you to quit inserting your sex lives into our lives!
We don’t.
We don’t have whole websites and printed materials on your sex lives. We don’t sell and distribute materials about your sex lives.
Check any of those groups I mentioned above and you’ll see they have endless material on what gay sex allegedly causes.
It’s a perverted interest in the sex lives of others. An unwelcome intrusion into the private lives of free tax-paying citizens.
The center’s for disease control has lots of materials on the physical repercussions of homosexual sex. It is this agency that those groups pull data from.
LOL— ummm, don’t confuse sex without protection with gay sex. I’ve never had a single std in my entire life and neither has my partner.
We don’t. We don’t have whole websites and printed materials on your sex lives. We don’t sell and distribute materials about your sex lives. Check any of those groups I mentioned above and you’ll see they have endless material on what gay sex allegedly causes. It’s a perverted interest in the sex lives of others. An unwelcome intrusion into the private lives of free tax-paying citizens.
These are necessary to counter the lie that homosexuality is right and normal and that there is nothing wrong with it. People need to be educated just what it is their children are being force-fed in schools, etc. We prove you to be liars.
What is interesting is that, virtually like Dan Trabue, you end up taking any subject to homosexuality. You can’t keep that perverse sexual behavior off your mind!
A lie? There you go again mixing religion and science.
Your whole argumentation is based on what’s nothing more than a myth. A camel herders religion.
You don’t know the difference between science and myth. You can’t know the difference because you need to cling to your religion to hold on to the notion that your pathetic life has some sort of value. It’s a totally natural psychological defence mechanism. Don’t worry, under-educated and poor people worldwide do exactly the same thing.
Pink,
Every comment you make mixes your atheistic religion with science. Atheism is your crutch you need to cling to in order to give YOUR life validity. It is your psychological defense mechanism. You make yourself your own god.
Glenn,
Buy a dictionary so you can at least understand what words mean. An atheist is an atheist BECAUSE OF SCIENCE.
Science is the observational study of what exists, not of your mythological fantasies.
When I asked you your education level before it was because of these glaring gaps in your knowledge.
My life’s validity is measured on what I accomplish and how I actually contribute to society, no special points for “faith”. I don’t need them.
The poor, the desperate, the under-educated need it so much because they know they have no other way of demonstrating they have any worth. They keep telling themselves “they’re blessed”.
Pink,
You are really hopelessly deluded. YOU need to buy a dictionary to understand what atheism is – and it isn’t based on science. It’s base on an irrational belief that everything came from nothing. It is based on the idea that one should be accountable to no higher power. There are no “glaring gaps” in my knowledge any more than there are “glaring gaps” in YOUR knowledge. NO ONE has knowledge of everything, even though people like you claim you do.
By the way, true Christians don’t find their worth in their faith. You consistently demonstrate your “glaring gaps” of knowledge in regards to the Christian faith.
You can have the last word – i’m done on this string dealing with your foolishness.
Atheism is the belief that no good evidence exists to support the belief in any gods. It’s a scientific position.
Your gaps in knowledge aren’t just in general knowledge, they’re also in Christianity. I recall you didn’t even know abortion was permitted for most of Christian history.
You don’t have an education, a successful career or social success- so you have christianity. A weapon you can use to climb the social ladder of the ignorant and self-important.
Have you ever considered that if your god theories were to be accepted as true you’d also have to accept he doesn’t like you? He’s given you a rubbish life. If god is responsible for all that is ‘good’, isn’t it funny that it’s the atheist you’re arguing with who’s part of the 1% and lives in a home worth millions? It’s the atheist who went to school. Who has a stable relationship, who was never addicted to anything… So your god thinks you’re total cr@p.
Atheism is not a belief about evidence, it is a belief about gods and whether any exist. It may be based on evidence or a lack there of, but to misstate it to make your point is dishonest. Surprise, surprise.
Atheism isn’t a word in a vacuum. It’s a cultural movement that says no evidence has been presented thus far to prove the existence of a god.
You’re an atheist too as you disbelieve the Muslim god, the Hindu god and the Buddhist god.
We simply disbelieve in one more god than you.
Atheism isn’t a belief about evidence, that’s called epistemology. You’re trying to shift the definition to support your claim that atheism is a derivation of science, and it isn’t. You can’t go changing definitions to suit your needs unless other are free to as well. Otherwise I will refer to you as a christian.
No. I’m giving you the philosophical definition.
There’s a difference between how a movement defines itself and a reductionist definition.
Atheism isn’t a derivation of science. I never said that. It’s the embrace of the scientific method. It’s the non acceptance of what cannot be proven scientifically. God is one of those things and we therefore choose a (negative) theism.
Do you make this stuff up as you go, or do you spread this rubbish everywhere? The philosophical definition is not the believe not enough evidence exists to believe god does. Atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist.
It’s not a belief plucked out of the air, genius. It’s the belief no gods exist based on evidence.
You said atheism is the belief that no evidence… that’s not the definition Pink. You may very well believe there is no evidence and that supports your atheism, but that isn’t the same. Don’t try to make me feel stupid because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I know precisely what I’m talking about. I’m saying the atheist movement does not believe in gods- Not because an archaic book says there is no god, but because of reason.
We have looked at the (lack of) evidence and we feel belief in a god is irrational.
Since you want to equate belief in myth with onus probandi you have to create these false equivalencies. Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief. The burden of proof is on those who positively affirm.
The burden of proof is on whoever makes the assertion. It has nothing to do with positive or negative claims.
Of course it does.
I don’t have to prove there’s no tooth fair, lochness monster or allah. Jeebus the angry poor jew falls into the same category.
You dont have to defend those claims if you dont make the claims. But as soon as you make the claim it’s your obligation to defend it.
Nope. Logical reasoning clearly states we don’t have to prove negatives.
The negation of an argument or dismissal of an argument does not constitute a claim. It constitutes the dismissal of evidence.
You must spend a lot of time reading coward atheists who do what ever they can to avoid having to defend their beliefs. Must be Dawkins, the guy makes every excuse to hide.
Logic pre-existed Dawkins. The mathematical formulas have been exactly the same for a very long time. Perhaps you should consult them…
Right, 2+2=God doesn’t exist. You obviously aren’t a serious thinker. Thanks for the discussion.
It would actually be 0+0= the evidence doesn’t prove god exists.
All arguments for the existence of your god could also be used to support the existence of any other god. That means there’s something flawed in the argument.
Just list them and you’ll see what I mean.
Christianity has existed for 2000 years so it must be true?
Judaism has existed for more time.
The bible says it’s true.
So does the Koran and the Torah.
…and so forth
No pink, it isn’t all the garbage you claim – that is nothing but homosexualist propaganda.
Long before the same-sex fake marriage debate homosexualists were still demanding special rights based on sexual behavior. They were still bringing into schools teachings of homosexuality (“Heather has two mommies” e.g.). For decades homosexualists have been trying to normalize the idea of homosexuality, and people have been fined and otherwise punished for decades for not going along with it.
All the millions of dollars homosexualist spend forcing same-sex fake marriage on everyone, suing anyone who refuses to sanction them, paying off politicians and PACs to coerce judges to side with them, etc COULD BE USED TO FEED THE HUNGRY, TREAT THE ILL, BETTER EDUCATE THE POOR, ETC, ETC AND TO IMPROVE PEOPLE’S LIVES – but instead it is used to coerce everyone to accept what is deviant and perverse. You are such a hypocrite!
Gays fright to have gay families protected, to stop the systematic marginalization and discrimination of gay people in society.
Christians like you fight to perpetuate marginalization and keep hate alive. You do it because you’re at the bottom of the social pyramid and as you have no traditionally measurable virtues in regards to intellect, business success etc- you need to resort to a system that makes you feel special at the expense of other people.
Pink,
All you have are ad hominem attacks. “Gay” families already have all the rights and protections as everyone else, but that isn’t enough. You want to force everyone to sanction what you do and your lifestyle of perversion. It is not hate to disagree. All you can say is “hate” because then you don’t have to deal with the real issues. Your claims of where we are, are hysterical ad hominems. It is the homosexualists who are at the bottom of the social pyramid. It is the homosexualists who want to feel special so they don’t have to face their perverse behaviors, who don’t want to acknowledge God because they don’t want to be accountable to Him.
Same-sex fake marriage will never be enough – you want to destroy all traditional marriage and family units and the forcing of total acceptance, as well as to attack the Christian faith. That’s all it’s ever been about. You wouldn’t dare make the same complaints in an Islamic country, nor would you attack Islam the way you attack Christianity – and Islam, unlike Christianity, calls for the death of homosexuals!
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/07/same-sex-marriage-wont-be-enough.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2012/08/18/samesex_marriage_thought_police/page/full/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-a-welfare-program-not-a-right
Pink,
No Christian has spent a dime to “insert themselves into other people’s lives.” PROVE IT. On the other hand, the homosexualists have spent millions of dollars to force their lifestyle into everyone else’s lives, suing everyone who doesn’t want to sanction homosexual behavior. You are such a hypocrite! “Junk science” is anything that doesn’t support homosexual “junk science.” It is the homosexualists who spread misinformation and propaganda, the worst of which is calling disagreement “hate.” Call it “hate” and you marginalize the debate – you don’t have to deal with it. But truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth (to quote another blogger). No one “incites homophobia” (which means “fear of sameness), no one incites hatred of homosexuals. That is just homosexualist propaganda to claim victim status.
Prove it?
When you want to tell people what they should or shouldn’t do in bed, what do you think that is?
I don’t care what you do in bed. Why do crazy christians have such a need to INSERT THEMSELVES into other people’s sex lives?
Junk science is what Christians like you regularly use to defend your junk-philosophy because real science doesn’t bear out your fantasies.
Pink, It is you who want to tell everyone what you do in bed and demand sanction for it. Keep your sex lives to yourself!
Real science does indeed demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not what the human body was designed for. But fake scientists who preach the religion of evolution says anything goes.
LOL, there you go with your resurrection science and men living in whales science.
Leave science alone. We don’t want to be dragged into your mythology.
We don’t care what contracts you people sign. Learn to live your own lives and stop meddling in the lives of people who want nothing to do with you.
It’s rather typical to hear the views of conservatives and/or Christians contorted into something it isn’t. We support what we feel is right, just and best for our nation and its culture. The left supports something else that they want to put forth as doing the same. What’s truly disgusting is the lengths the left will go to pervert the goals of the right in order to advance their agenda. As Glenn said, “gays” have all the legal protections afforded to every other American. But to advance their cause, protections already established and enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot help but be compromised.
I was hoping not to spend more time on Pink’s stupidity, but I couldn’t let that last bunch of lies go by.
Atheism says it won’t look at any evidence for God’s existence. That is an unscientific position.
Not knowing that SOME Christian leaders in the past were okay with abortion has nothing to do with know what the Christian faith itself teaches (i.e., what does the Bible say vs what men say) The Christian faith, biblically speaking, is against abortion. One can not know every single deviation from the Christian faith which has been taught throughout history. It’s hard enough to keep up with current false teachings.
You claim I don’t have an education – by whose standards? Because I don’t have letters after my name? You claim I don’t have a successful career, but that proves even more how ignorant you are about me. I’m done with my career, having retired almost three years ago. My career included five years serving my nation in the Army, 3 1/2 years working for the postal system, 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller (11 years of which was as front line supervisor) and my final 1 1/2 years as an air traffic control instructor. Being retired gives me more time to spend in a ministry for which I have been studying for almost 40 years. By the way, an uneducated person would find difficulty acquiring a commercial pilot license and the various ratings I hold with it, including flying for 25 years. And my social success has been very good, thank you.
I don’t use Christianity for anything, let alone a weapon. It is atheists such as yourself who use your religion as a weapon to silence Christians and remove any evidence of Christianity from existence, because you hate what represents the God who you reject.
Huge sums of money is not the measure of success, nor is a huge home. I am a more practical person and have a home which suits my needs, rather than one like you have to impress people with. THAT is your success – the self-centered belief that you are important because of wealth, and you like to show it off as if that means you are a decent human being.
I have never been addicted to anything either; so what? I haven’t touched alcohol for 40 years; does that make me better than those who drink? Absolutely not.
I have a real stable relationships – 38 years with the same woman. REAL meaning one which is not based on perversions.
You are such a sad individual who thinks you are something important because of being wealthy. Such a foolish, foolish person you are, who will not impress God when you meet him face to face.
Pink,
You continue to speak of logic. When will we get to hear some?
I know of no one who argues for the truth of the Christian God’s existence based on the longevity of Christianity. I’ve seen nothing in any of your comments here that suggest you’ve ever made a serious study of what Christianity truly is about and how Christians defend it.