Today in the Religion Forum I learned:

[Warren Stupidity]

1. NASA should shut down the biologics experiments on their rovers on mars, because there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of life outside our own planet.

2. You may not be a racist or a homophobe if you believe that there are biological, social or cultural reasons to support your position

[rug]

1. I learned the depth of the dishonesty of posters who rearrange others' words in lieu of argument.

Oh wait, I learned that a long time ago. There's just a lot of that going on in here tonight.

[cleanhippie]

2. Warren, that is not the takeaway, my friend. The takeaway is the willful ignorance

Fueled by the cognitive dissonance many people experience when their deeply held beliefs are shown to be flawed, contradictory, irrational, and illogical.

This IS the Religion Group. It's to be expected. (Note the apologist defending it and the snide, thinly veiled insult that will likely follow this post. Wanna bet it happens?)

[el_bryanto]

4. Yes I've noticed that it's only the believers/religionists who engage in thinly veiled insults

Atheists never stoop to mocking those they disagree with broad brush characterizations.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I don't 'thinly veil' my reaction to outright bigotry, or apologia thereof.

[el_bryanto]

9. Apologia in this case meaning someone who is a believer and chooses to

continue being a believer?

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

11. If belief is part and parcel of, for instance, calling same sex marriage a sin.

Or calling adoption by same-sex couples a form of discrimination against the child in question.


Or, someone who attempts to shield a political leader, like the pope from criticism for not only holding that position, but instructing his ~1.2 billion followers in such moral edicts (whether they obey or not).

[el_bryanto]

12. So any Catholic who doesn't condemn the Pope, I take it. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I'm open to alternate interpretations if they are logically sound and well reasoned.

But yes, if you defend his statements on these issues, I have a major problem with you. ('You' in the rhetorical sense, I have no idea if you're a catholic, or if you defend his statements on these issues.)

[el_bryanto]

16. I'm a Mormon - I'll speculate that probably isn't much better from your perspective.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Depends.

The shift in the Mormon church in 1978 around the nature of black people, and the positions they could hold in the Mormon church, could serve as a useful template for revision of the Catholic faith.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Both religions absolutely refuse to let women have any leadership positions at all. No change.

Women are considered inferior in both Catholicism and LDS. No leadership opportunities at all.

It's amazing how not having a penis can stop your ambitions or progress in religious and secular organizations, as well as your earning ability.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Oh, absolutely.

My only point was that revision is possible.

Especially in the other 'you're a bigot if you call the pope a bigot' thread, it has been claimed that it is impossible for the pope to change this. That's fundamentally untrue. He can change it. He chooses not to.

And for that, he DOES now bear responsibility.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. The problem with the LDS flavor of revision, nothing is learned.

In their 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, the First Presidency made no admission of error whatsoever, and instead claimed the church was right to have discriminated against non-whites for more than a century, and that only though their very intense prayer did God finally change his mind on the whole issue.

Sure, they revised their stance on race, but their stance on being infallible, which was arguably the root cause of their racism in the first place, remains.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. I was not aware of that aspect.

Apparently I have given the Mormon Church more credit than it deserves for that change.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Well, the fantastic part about the whole thing is...

...every revelation "made" to the church is compiled in The Doctrine and Covenants. It is essentially one long romp through the sordid history of the church, and LDS missionaries give this thing away for free. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

And, by the way, one of the signatories on that 1978 Revelation was none other than Marion Romney... Mitt's dad.

[Brettongarcia]

39. HeyDon't forget what an important place the penis - and circumcision - had for Judaism & for Christ!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

44. Yes and it's barbaric and unnecessary.

The foreskin has a real purpose, and ripping it off an infant who is NOT able to give consent is pretty fucking barbaric. People do it because it's a cultural habit.

[Brettongarcia]

55. I agree. Just being sarcastic.

[Phlem]

77. my Wife's side of the family is fully mormon.

She's non practicing because she grew up around it, and I've been exposed to it for 20 + years. I love and respect her, my father in law and her relatives say some of the most incoherent, hypocritical, asinine things and I let her know about it always. Her father triggered my PTSD once because of authoritative demeanor and complete ignorance directed at me in my house while they stayed over. I hate him forever. I've worked for Mormons who overworked and underpaid everyone @ the company only to sell it, where the CEO then thanked everyone in a company wide meeting for making him 10 million dollars then left.

Why yes of course, Mormon's are the bee's knees! The best folk around.

So packed full of lies, bigotry, theft, manipulation, deceit.

I'm sure Joseph Smith would approve.



-p

[el_bryanto]

78. Gosh I'm sorry a bunch of people I've never met treated you poorly.

But I'm still a Mormon.

Bryant

[Phlem]

79. Right and they're not all influenced by the same religion.

Nice try chief.

-p

[el_bryanto]

80. What am I supposed to say?

I've met Mormon Assholes, but I've met many Mormons who were lovely and kind people.

Bryant

[Phlem]

82. Yes, I have yet to meet the latter no matter how kind and gentle they front.

but it's the ignorant pride is what kills me. I wouldn't wear the Mormon religion as a badge of honor, but you go ahead.

[el_bryanto]

84. Well there's little point to being embarrassed about it

I don't bring it up too often though. I don't want to be accused of hiding it, but I don't make a point of it usually. Just fit in this situation.

[Starboard Tack]

121. You say you dislike bigotry

Yet you dismiss millions of individuals worldwide because of their spiritual belief. And your reason for this, your justification for this dislike toward Mormons is based on your family and some Mormons you worked for.
And you call them bigots?

I've met quite a few Mormons and didn't consider any of them assholes. In fact, I was pretty impressed by how friendly and decent and respectful they were. Not saying there aren't any assholes out there. We have no shortage of assholes in the atheist community. And if you want to see some lies and deceit and manipulation, we got some superstars.

We might garner more respect from the religious community if we cleaned our own house first and didn't engage in the ugly tactics of fundamentalist bigots.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. I've met quite a few horrendous bigots who are superficially

"friendly and decent and respectful", as none of those qualities excluded being a horrendous bigot.

[Starboard Tack]

124. What's your point Warren?

I'm sure we've all met some of those. Does it mean we should hate millions because they share certain beliefs with these bigots you've met?

[Warren Stupidity]

125. You seem to have claimed that being all nice and everything

proved something, at least anecdotally about Mormons. It certainly doesn't prove that they aren't all bigoted assholes, not that I think they all are. About all it demonstrates is that Mormons tend to be superficially "nice", unlike, for example, residents of New York City.

[Starboard Tack]

127. Excuse me! Which side of your mouth should I respond to?

The side that says " It certainly doesn't prove that they aren't all bigoted assholes"
OR
the side that says "not that I think they all are".

One side of your mouth seems to be saying that all Mormons are probably assholes, but you can't prove it.
While the other side says you don't think they all are, leaving the impression that you think most are.

Please tell me if I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds to me that you don't like Mormons.

You might note that I was responding to another poster, who made his feelings quite clear regarding all Mormons, based on his own personal anecdotal experience. Maybe you should be talking to him.

[Phlem]

131. What's wrong?

Did someone upset you?

[Warren Stupidity]

135. i'll use fewer words.

Nice does not mean not a bigot.

[Starboard Tack]

136. ok, so what exactly are you saying?

That you are bigoted toward Mormons, in general, even though some of them may be "nice"? Is that where accurate?

[Warren Stupidity]

137. nice does not mean not bigoted.

I actually cannot find a simpler expression. It still seems to complicated a concept for you, or else perhaps you are engaged in some other effort.

[Starboard Tack]

138. Got it! Loud and clear!

Even though some Mormons may be nice, it doesn't affect any bigotry you may have toward them.

[Phlem]

132. Dude

When those beliefs effect me or my family and friends, (yes I have friends who are gay) adversely, then they are wrong, period.



-p

[Starboard Tack]

145. Oh sorry. I thought you were talking about people, not beliefs.

I don't care what you think of their beliefs, but calling a group of people liars and bigots because of their religious beliefs is, in itself, bigotry. Some may also be assholes if they try to impose those beliefs on others, but calling all Mormons assholes purely because of their personal spiritual beliefs, is the height of bigotry. We see quite a lot of that here from the anti-theist extremists, who pretend to speak on behalf of atheists. But that is a common tactic of fundamentalists, extremists and fringe elements in general, all of whom are subject to my own personal bigotry.
I don't get into belief systems , of any kind, be they religious or atheist. They all claim the high ground. Belief is a personal issue and anyone who tries to elevate it beyond that point is being manipulative.

[Phlem]

146. ...

Ignore! You've waited a day to come up with your rebuttal after posting this yourself?

"You're doing a fine job. We're all bigots, to one degree or another, including me.
No, I don't know what you've been through. All I know is what you are posting."



you need some help. Why don't you rest now.

goodby!

[Starboard Tack]

153. So sorry if I'm not operating on your schedule. I have a life and probably a different time zone.

Am I to assume that you don't dislike Mormons as a group and it's only their beliefs you have a problem with? Or are they all assholes because of your personal experiences with some of them?

[rug]

134. Richard Dawkins is unfailingly polite.

[Phlem]

123. Oh, OK then, cause you've walked a mile in my shoes.

Whatever Jim.

[Starboard Tack]

126. No, I haven't walked a yard in your shoes.

I just point out bigotry when I see it. I've been fucked over at different times in my life by various people. Should I keep a tally of their religious beliefs so I can work up a hatred for their co-religionists?

[Phlem]

129. Man you really just don't get it and I'm not going to spell it out.

but keep up the smug ignorant comments because you have no IDEA what I've seen or been through. Your soooooooo smart and tenacious in proving I'm a bigot yet you have no clue as to why I feel this way. You think it's because a few of them pissed me off but it's oh so much more than that. Keep yakking cause you continue to look clueless.

Wait a minute are you Jesus? The one and only fountain of morality?

[Starboard Tack]

133. I'm not trying to prove anything

You're doing a fine job. We're all bigots, to one degree or another, including me.
No, I don't know what you've been through. All I know is what you are posting.

[okasha]

128. I. haven't walked in your. shoes, either.

Just my own.

But a couple years ago, when I was critically ill, a Mormon friend walked beside me every step of the way. She's one of the best people I know.

[Phlem]

130. That's great!

I'm happy you found her.



-p

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

139. I have yet to see you object to atheistic bigotry

Or is your reaction to that one of approval?

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Keep reading.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

141. I did. You have not shown the slightest disapproval of atheist bigotry

Certainly not in this thread.

If you can show me where you have done so elsewhere, I shall publicly apologize to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I'm not your pet monkey.

I'm not going to summarize my entire posting history to satisfy you.
Got better shit to do.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

143. Translation

"I am not going to show that I have disapproved of atheistic bigotry, and it's your fault I won't."

Is it because, as I said, you cannot show the slightest disapproval of atheistic bigotry. I think that's most likely.

Come on, you say that you disapprove of bigotry, so be a Mensch. Show that you have, just once, disapproved of bigotry from atheists towards believers. Or, at least, say that you disapprove of such bigotry.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Again, I am not your pet monkey.

I'm not going to dance for you. I went link-hunting to demonstrate that I disapproved of the suggested link between religion and mental illness for a poster making demands just like you are, and I provided many, to no avail.

It's a endeavor I will not be repeating on demand for you or anyone else.

Go fish.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

154. In other words

You claim to be against all bigotry, but when I call upon you to show that you are against atheistic bigotry, you are unable to do so.

Your blathering about not being a "pet monkey" seems to be saying "You are being unreasonable when asking me to back up my assertion". It comes off as being vaguely insulting, and is also completely unresponsive to what I asked.

A simple, "I have never specifically denounced atheistic bigotry, but of course I oppose it" would have been a reasonable response. But apparently you cannot bring yourself to say that.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. You have just as much access to the site search feature as I do.

I'm not going to dance for you. I've done it before. It was fruitless. I learn from my mistakes.

And don't try to frame it that I am 'unable', because that is a lie. In fact, if you search a little, you'll find the former instance I referred to. Already done.

I am neither your pet nor your servant. Nor will I reveal all the posts I have clicked 'alert' on, for reasons you are so interested in. Neither PM's to people who have said unfortunate things.

What you are demanding, you have no fucking right to demand, and I will not produce it for you. This is a public, google indexed site. If you want to play games, the search is in the upper right hand corner. Have a ball.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

161. No, you are not my servant nor my pet. You are, however, my opponent in a debate

And when you are asked to back up an assertion in a debate, it is incumbent on you to do so. That is proper debating technique.

I have EVERY right to demand that you back up your assertions. You are the one refusing to play properly, not me.

Just answer one question, yes or no: Do you oppose bigoted statements from atheists?

[AtheistCrusader]

162. You made the assertion.

I answered it. (I've never seen you.../Keep reading)

So, don't pretend this was anything other than a smear.


And yes, I do oppose bigoted statements from atheists. From anyone. Welcome to the last... Idunno, four weeks worth of threads.
Have you figured out how to use the search function yet? The person I responded to with links was el-bryanto, if that narrows it for you. I also addressed this explicitly with Rug over the last couple weeks.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

165. No YOU made the assertion that you opposed all bigotry.

I asked if that included atheistic bigotry, and until this last post, you refused to answer.

It was YOUR assertion, and you are now insisting that I should investigate it. Why should I have to, since it is YOUR assertion?

[AtheistCrusader]

166. I didn't refuse to answer. I refused to do your homework for your claim. (I've never seen therefore

you must prove...)

There's a lot of things in the world you've never personally seen, should everyone go on a fucking field trip to get it for you?
I answered your question. There is a long historical record here in this forum within which you can find evidence of it. I've even cited the people whom I had the exchange with. El_bryanto and Rug.

It's very recent. Still on the front page in this forum.
Surely you can find it, since 'you've never seen' something is such a compelling argument that I must then sit in the docket and defend myself from your accusations.

[cleanhippie]

158. In Other Words, you make an ugly accusation then insist your victim prove their innocence.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

160. All I ask him to do was show -- or at least say -- he opposed atheistic bigotry

After he had said, "I don't 'thinly veil' my reaction to outright bigotry, or apologia thereof." HE raised the point about his opposition to bigotry, not me. Since atheistic bigotry has been seen on DU, I said that I have never seen him oppose atheistic bigotry and asked him if he had. If he had said something along the lines of "I have never explicitly opposed it, but of course I do" that would have been the end of it. But apparently, he could not bring himself to say that, which leads me to question his original statement.

Asking people, even atheists, to back up their assertions is not unreasonable. Or is it?

[AtheistCrusader]

163. Maybe you should just read more.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

164. Translation: AtheistCrusader will not support his assertion

but expects me to do it for him.

And STILL will not say "Of course I oppose atheistic bigotry, just as I oppose all bigotry" or anything like it. Could it be that he does not oppose atheistic bigotry?

[AtheistCrusader]

167. I explicitly answered this claim four hours before you posted this.

I don't engage in special pleading. When I say 'I oppose bigotry' I don't need to answer 'what about X bigotry', 'what about Y bigotry'.


Your attack is pretty feeble there, pal. When I say 'I oppose bigotry', I already answered your 'what if' question.
I do not answer to the kangaroo court of public opinion predicated upon a smear you invented 'because you haven't seen it'.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. I learned that b/c no one can prove or disprove the existence of god, both camps are equally wrong

Or did I learn that on Meet the Press?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Probably Hardball.

[trotsky]

10. FOX News, I think, pioneered the "both sides are equal" reporting concept.

Sad to see it embraced here.

[el_bryanto]

13. This is pretty amusing

I wonder what would happen if a Believer actually did take the position "You atheists all need to repent and accept God."

He'd be flayed pretty good, I'd imagine.

Bryant

[trotsky]

15. Well, you yourself have claimed there is something you have that non-believers never will.

A special benefit that we cannot ever attain. Not far off, I suppose.

[el_bryanto]

18. I said that when pressed - that's not exactly the missionary fever

Lets face it - if being a believer is exactly the same as being an atheist, than what would be the point?

You've come across pascals wager, at some point - presumably there is a reason you don't find that compelling, because there is some positive towards being an Atheist - which I would speculate comes in the form of having a more complete and accurate view of the world than believers.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Pascal's Wager is morally bankrupt.

It's a fear-based only. It is entirely predicated upon your fear of punishment, not faith. And the decision to extend faith out of that fear is not zero-cost to you or society, as the wager itself doesn't take into account.

Nor does it help you select between any number of claimed gods.

[trotsky]

20. Pascal's Wager?

There are so many flaws with that it's hard to know where to begin. It's not so much that there is a "positive" with atheism as there are unaccounted-for costs with believing in a god that the wager doesn't address. Do you need to spend an hour every Sunday in church? Refrain from certain pleasurable activities? Etc.

Not to mention the fact that you're taking chances that A) you're believing in the RIGHT god, or B) that if god exists, it is incapable of knowing whether someone sincerely believes in it or is just hedging a bet.

Yeah we could have a great fun thread about Pascal's Wager.

[el_bryanto]

21. I guess Pascal's wager was poorly chosen - was on my way to lunch

Do you think there are positive benefits to being an atheist that are not available to believers (assuming they don't want to change their stance on religion)?

Bryant

[trotsky]

22. As compared to the overall generic believer, it's hard to say.

As compared to someone with specific beliefs that require them to deny their sexuality, for instance, then yeah. But that would be a benefit of other religions compared with their own, too.

[el_bryanto]

41. There's an interesting blindspot I have when it comes to atheism

Blindspot might be the wrong word from my perspective - but I generally look at Atheism as one stance among many on the existence and nature of God. While I do think my personal position is the most correct, I assume that people who practice other faiths or atheists or agnostics feel that their stance is the most correct. So it comes natural to me to say "Well yes, I think my faith has benefits, but I assume that a Muslim or a Buddhist or an Atheist also feels that their position on God is the most correct and gives them benefits."

But I think from your perspective, and correct me if I'm wrong, a lack of belief in God is more the natural or default state; people are socialized into a religion by their parents or community, but they wouldn't naturally pick up a religion. Which implies atheism should be in a different category from a religious belief.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

54. So you don't believe this:

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).

[el_bryanto]

57. I don't really care to debate scriptures and how best to apply them in our lives

with someone who believes me to be thoughtless and or dishonest. While I do salute your moral courage at making your opinion of me and other believers clear, I'd still rather discuss things with someone who could at least pretend respect for other opinions, particularly when it comes to spiritual matters.

Thank you for understanding.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

59. and there it is.

It doesn't take long. As soon as an assertion on faith is challenged the dishonesty begins.

[el_bryanto]

60. What dishonesty are you talking about? As far as I know everything i said was factual.

[el_bryanto]

64. Having read your comments below here you go

I'm sure you'll find dishonesty in this statement too though -because that's what you are looking for.

You pick one scripture out of the Book of Mormon which declares that all religions are either of God or of the Devil. That is true. Everything we give our time to either takes us closer to God or closer to Satan, whether it be traditional churches or other activities we might engage in. This is how I interpret that scripture; as a commandment to avoid those things that lead towards the Devil and to seek those things that lead one to God. From the 13th article of faith.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

If a person is genuinely trying to do good, regardless of their religious belief, they will be rewarded by a just God. And spiritual insights can come from people of any faith or of no faith at all.

These are not controversial positions within the Mormon Church; along with the Book of Mormon there are several other scriptures and some 150 years of revelations from the various prophets which have clarified what the church believes and how we are to look at members of other faiths.

I look forward to you finding some new way to call me a liar.

Bryant

[el_bryanto]

66. I see you posted your argument in favor of believers being thoughtless and dishonest

over in Atheists and Agnostics - what bullshit.

Bryant

[trotsky]

67. Let me ask you something.

Do you think being called "intellectually dishonest" is the same thing as being called a liar?

[el_bryanto]

68. Someone who is intellectual dishonest is dishonest - either because they are too

dumb or invested to see the flaws in their argument, or because they are being willfully deceitful.

It's not meant as a compliment - and while I'm sure you see them as two different things, I'm pretty sure Warren Stupidity doesn't.

Bryant

[trotsky]

69. Well, if you can read his mind then I have nothing more to say. n/t

[el_bryanto]

70. Because it's not a defensible position

Do you think I'm intellectually dishonest? That's a simple yes/no question.

For the record I think you are intellectually honest, and many atheists here are.

Bryant

[trotsky]

71. I guess it depends on your answers to questions about your faith.

Do you believe you will get your own planet when you die?

[el_bryanto]

72. That's an interesting question

I guess the answer is yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's very likely in my particular case.

I don't think you are given your own planet as like a pleasure planet or something like that; I think it's more of a responsibility. You've grown up and so can shoulder additional responsibilities to help out other people.

Bryant

[trotsky]

73. Is it a real, physical planet like Earth? n/t

[el_bryanto]

74. I believe so.

I don't know the mechanics of how it works obviously.

Bryant

[trotsky]

75. When happens when your planet (if you have one) gets consumed by a supernova?

Or destroyed by an impact event?

[el_bryanto]

76. I don't really have an answer to that question.

I don't know. It would be a tragedy it it were inhabited; and I'm assuming that the planets we are given are inhabited. But I don't know.

I'm sorry this isn't a subject that particularly interests me religiously, and even if it did I'm not sure there's a lot of information on it anyway, so I can't answer these questions concretely.

Bryant

[trotsky]

81. The people on the planet that a Mormon ends up running...

can they be Mormons too? Will they get their own planet?

You realize that while the universe is awfully big, with that kind of exponential growth it would eventually overtake the number of habitable planets - then what?

I don't even need concrete answers here to get the one I wanted. This is a genuine belief of your church, you acknowledge its legitimacy, but yet you have no interest in actually probing the consequences of the belief. That, I think, is intellectually dishonest.

[el_bryanto]

83. Well it's not really a core belief

It's more of a how many angels can dance on the head of a pin thing. Or could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it. The mechanics of heaven or an afterlife are pretty much always fiddly. Like "So you go to heaven, and then you live for eternity. Wouldn't you eventually get sick of it? I mean wouldn't there come a day when you've pretty much done everything a million times, and yet you go on existing? Wouldn't heaven eventually become hell?" That's one I have thought about quite a bit.

If it is intellectually dishonest, which I don't really concede that it is, it's a pretty minor intellectual dishonesty.

Have you ever criticized a fellow atheist for going to far publicly? or do you pretty much always send them an unverifiable private e-mail?

Bryant

[trotsky]

85. I think it's highly intellectually dishonest...

especially when there are other beliefs in your religion that you DO discard.

As far as criticizing another atheist publicly, I've done it plenty of times. One particular atheist goes overboard so much, I had to put him on ignore.

[el_bryanto]

86. I haven't discarded any beliefs from my religion

I will state, though, that I don't believe you to be an expert on my religion. And there is a distinction from a doctrine and a practice - i.e. people might believe the same doctrine, but based on their personal experience enact it differently in their lives.

Funny that I've never seen you do it. You've certainly seen me call believers to task, but I can't think of a time when you did it.

Bryant

[trotsky]

88. Do you wear the special underwear?

Do you believe in baptizing the dead?

Do you think Joseph Smith actually had some golden plates and that he translated them to start Mormonism?

No, I'm no expert, but I am absolutely sure there are parts of the official church dogma that you don't believe. And I contend that you discard them for reasons that could easily be applied to the beliefs you DO hold on to.

Actually, since Mormons also accept the bible, we could just use that too, I guess. Take a look at the reasons why you reject some things in the bible but embrace others.

Regarding the red herring topic you've attempted to bring up - you've already admitted there are many threads you don't bother clicking on so for you to have "never seen" something doesn't exactly serve as proof it hasn't happened.

[el_bryanto]

90. Yes yes and yes

Yes I wear garments (which are the name we use for them). Yes I have participated in baptisms for the dead and believe in them. Yes I believe that Joseph Smith received the Golden Plates from and Angel, and he translated them through the power of God.

Go on.

Bryant

[trotsky]

91. Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, as your church teaches? n/t

[el_bryanto]

92. All sex outside of Marriage is a sin including

Adultry, Fornication, Homosexual Sex and Masturbation. I personal don't spend a lot of time dwelling on this issue; I prefer to let people live their lives as best they can, but yes I am required to believe that homosexual sex is a sin.

Bryant

[trotsky]

93. Do you believe that Thomas Monson is your prophet, and that he speaks for god?

Do you believe your god chose Mr. Monson to be your prophet?

[el_bryanto]

94. Yes and yes

I'm surprised you didn't dig in on the Homosexuality one - surely that's the one you could really rub my nose in.

Bryant

[trotsky]

95. Didn't think I needed to rub it in, it's obvious that you're not quite honest with that one.

Just working down the list.

Do you follow the Word of Wisdom precisely?

[el_bryanto]

96. There are varying interpretations of that one

I don't smoke, drink alcohol, drink coffee or tea or use illegal drugs.

I do drink coke and other caffeinated drinks and coke with alcohol (assuming it is on a heat high enough that the bulk of the alcohol will burn off (i.e. using wine to deglaze a pan is ok, soaking a cake in rum is not).

I also used refined sugar.

Do let me know how I score on this one. Actually - score my honesty on all of them - I do want to find out exactly how big a liar you think I am.

Bryant

[trotsky]

97. Already made the point that being intellectually dishonest is not the same as being a liar.

If you are going to persist in equating the two there isn't much point in going on.

You have demonstrated no interest in analyzing beliefs beyond a certain point.

You have shown that there are multiple church teachings that you acknowledge but disregard for yourself.

I believe the point has been made.

[el_bryanto]

98. OK - which policies do I acknowledge but disregard for myself?

Please be clear. I've tried to answer honestly and I'm not seeing it.

And I apologize for using the word liar; I do understand the distinction, but I don't like being called intellectually dishonest any more than I like being called a liar.

Bryant

[trotsky]

99. Not following the dietary rules for one.

The other may get a bit personal, asking you about intimate relationships. I don't want to pressure you into divulging details you aren't comfortable stating in this setting, however.

[el_bryanto]

100. OK -lets stick with that one

Do you hold yourself to be a better judge of Mormon Diatary laws than myself?

Bryant

[trotsky]

101. I consider the Mormon Church's website to be a pretty good indicator of what those laws are.

http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/commandments

Obey the Word of Wisdom


The things we do and don't consume are some of the most visible markers of our faith, and they come from our belief that our bodies are precious gifts from God. We believe He has given us guidance about how best to take care of them. He revealed a law of health, called the Word of Wisdom, to Joseph Smith in 1833. The Word of Wisdom prohibits the drinking of alcohol, coffee and tea, and the use of tobacco. It also implies that we not use illegal drugs or abuse prescription drugs.

I see nothing about "cooking off" the alcohol making it OK. There often still remain amounts of it after the cooking process, so the reality is that you are indeed consuming alcohol.

We could also talk about why abstaining from coffee and tea is supposed to result in "good health" when in fact most studies show the opposite, that both drinks have significant health benefits. Do you ever wonder about that, and why you are prohibited from consuming something that could actually help your body?

[el_bryanto]

102. I'm not drinking the alcohol if I use it to cook

I'm eating it.

There are trace amounts of alcohol in almost anything with sugar - in particular most forms of juice will have some portion of them fermenting and creating alcohol. Negligible amounts in most cases. And then there is vinegar which I also use in cooking and dressings. Some medications also have alcohol as part of them - Nyquil for example. I can partake of all those things while honestly answering that I live by the Word of Wisdom.

What I don't do is drink alcohol that is prepare for the purposes of getting drunk or of altering your mental state; as I take that to be the purpose of that prohibition.

As for the latter question, that goes more towards thoughtless rather than dishonest. I kind of accept that on the thoughtless / dishonest spectrum that Warren Stupidity cooked up and that you have apparently bought into, I'm going to be some percentage of thoughtless and dishonest. And I'd rather be thoughtless. But I have tried coffee and thought it was awful so I don't really desire to try it again.

I should point out that tea is generally taken, by practice, to mean tea made from the tea leaf; herbal teas are ok. And I do enjoy herbal teas during our short winter season.

Bryant

[trotsky]

112. That's intellectually dishonest.

The whole point of your dietary laws is supposedly to treat your body right, i.e. avoid putting harmful things in it.

Whether you "eat" or "drink" the alcohol, it's still going into your body. Surely you realize that to someone like me, it looks like you are simply rationalizing.

Hey, I hate coffee too and refuse to drink it, so I'm missing out on its potential health benefits. But I do drink tea. What do you think about your religion's prohibition of items that could actually have health benefits?

[el_bryanto]

113. It's intellectually dishonest because I fail to live up to your interpretation of

my principals.

Do you see yourself as arguing in good faith here? Why is your interpretation the one that matters and mine doesn't? I've been a member my whole life and people interpret the word of wisdom in a dozen different ways - like many commandments. As I said above Juice and Vinegar both have trace amounts of alcohol in them, and yet we are not prohibited from drinking them - so what is the actual prohibition going to - in my opinion it's using alcohol as a drug, which I don't do. I don't cook with alcohol to get high. That's how I interpret the commandment.

So why exactly is your interpretation the valid one and mine isn't? Why am I intellectually dishonest for living up to the standards as I understand them instead of as you understand them?

Also given that under the framework Warren Stupidity proposed and that you have bought into, I am definitely dishonest and/or thoughtless - isn't continuing this discussion a mugs game? I mean it's just going to get more and more insulting, since there is no path wherein a believer is a person worthy of respect. You will just keep insulting me until you declare yourself the winner, right?

And since we've exhausted the Word of Wisdom, why don't we go onto sexual ethics, since I'm sure that's what you were hinting at yesterday - lots of ways to insult me on that subject.

Bryant

[trotsky]

114. You are correct in one thing.

There is definitely no point in going on.

[el_bryanto]

115. Yep - once again you declare yourself the winner and end the discussion.

That's just the way you do things. Congratulations on your victory, you should feel really proud of yourself.

Bryant

[trotsky]

116. I thought it was pretty clear you had declared yourself the victor.

Congratulations on your win. I don't really give a shit, I merely committed the crime of disagreeing with you.

[el_bryanto]

117. Well, and lets be fair - accusing me and all believers of being thoughtless and dishonest

So there's that.

Bryant

[trotsky]

118. Yup, you win!

I will offer nothing but validation of your beliefs from this point on.

You are 100% correct in your interpretation of the Mormon faith, every other interpretation I read is false. Congratulations on discovering the universal truth of reality and human existence.

[el_bryanto]

119. Yeah cause that's exactly what I said.

You just mischaracterize my position all you want - it's sad to see you stoop so low.

Bryant

[trotsky]

120. I could say the same thing. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

110. Do you oppose marriage equality?

[el_bryanto]

111. No - I don't see any argument against marriage equality that isn't based strictly on

religious preference, and I don't think that governing based on religious preference is a sound policy. I think Government should get out of the marriage business entirely, and just have civil unions for everybody (fixing the legal problems with them as currently set up), but I don't think that's likely, so I support marriage equality.

Every time I've had the opportunity to vote in favor of Marriage Equality in Florida (or more precisely to vote against marriage discrimination) I've done so.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

87. I would categorize that exchange as "thoughtless".

it is an unexamined belief, and when questioned the believer runs away from it claiming it to be "uninteresting". It would be intellectually dishonest if on questioning the belief suddenly was claimed to not be literal, but instead metaphorical, and then there would be a backfilling attempt to explain away the prior claim of literal belief.

[trotsky]

89. Hmm, yes, you do have a good point there.

Thoughtless in refusing to dig any deeper, content to just wall it off and call it "Mystery." Intellectually dishonest when other tenets with as much or perhaps even less support are embraced.

Definitely not exclusive between the two.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. yes. Not believing in bullshit is a positive benefit.

Atheists have this benefit that is unavailable to theists.

[rug]

56. As shown by Ayn Rand, Charles Krauthammer and David Silverman.

If only I could be as awesome.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. so you are softening your position?

[el_bryanto]

28. I've tried not to stereotype all atheists

Although it's hard not to sometimes. But I fully understand that your former position that all believers are thoughtless and or dishonest was alone - i wouldn't hold anybody else accountable for that position.

Bryant

[AlbertCat]

45. your former position that all believers are thoughtless and or dishonest was alone

"I've tried not to stereotype all atheists"

Exactly why would you expect atheists to not act/think like you with respect to "painting with a broad brush"?
Exactly why would you expect atheists to realistically assume all theists think the same anymore than you assume all atheists think the same?

[el_bryanto]

47. Well in the case of Warren Stupidity

He stated that all believers are thoughtless and/or dishonest. He has since softened that position to "I've never met a believer who wasn't thoughtless or dishonest but they might exist." So in his case, I'd say it's a far cop that he does stereotype all believers/religionists. I've certainly encountered others who seem to feel similarly, but I don't think that all atheists do that. Just a few of them do.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

48. So far, in this forum, my conjecture about theists remains true.

[el_bryanto]

49. Just in this forum or in real life as well?

I got the impression you had never met a believer you didn't consider thoughtless or dishonest.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

50. oh real life too, but for the most part discussions about faith and belief don't happen.

[el_bryanto]

52. Thank you for responding.

You are really a light of brutal honesty on this forum. I wonder all the time how many of our atheists secretly believe in your assessment but lack your moral courage to come out and say it.

Of course I'm equally sure that many atheists here don't agree with your assessment.

Bryant

[AlbertCat]

51. all believers are thoughtless and/or dishonest.

Well, the thoughtFUL ones do seem a little dishonest.

[el_bryanto]

53. I salute your moral courage.

You should be proud of yourself for being willing to say what you believe to be the truth, even though it is pretty ugly.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Well that is my point. I have yet to have a discussion here on faith and belief with a believer

that didn't seem to me to be dishonest.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. I have come to the conclusion that to a degree, we are not using the same language.

Oh sure, same words. Similar mannerism, but the meaning is entirely different.

For instance, the continued and willful misinterpretation of 'delusion' to mean 'psychosis'. Rather than the common parlance/top dictionary definitions. You have to go fishing in the DSM-V to find the clinical psychosis definition of 'delusion', and that's a book most people don't even have access to. But we say it, and the assumption by at least some people on the other side, no matter what qualifications we put around it, is that we mean they are mentally ill. Doesn't matter how many posts you link to that specify clearly otherwise.

So it's either willful dishonesty, or, I am coming to think, a breakdown of communication because we use language differently. We MEAN different things.

Incredibly frustrating, but induces less rage in me when I frame it as a miscommunication, rather than deliberate deception.

[el_bryanto]

62. A couple of points

1) while it is true that there are genuine misunderstandings, there are also deliberate attempts on both sides to control the language of the debate.

2) At a certain point in a long discussion with someone it's difficult to really believe that they legitimately don't understand what you are saying.

3) if you go looking for dishonest thoughtless people, you'll find them. If I started with the presumption that atheists are mean-spirited assholes, I have no doubt that thesis would be confirmed nearly 100% of the time; once you start with a prejudice it's very hard to break through that prejudice.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Oh I think there is willful dishonesty on actual beliefs.

So an assertion can be made that all faiths have truth and value, and then when asked how that belief squares with a direct contradiction in that person's belief system, the evasions start. In my opinion the evasions start because the original assertion was dishonest. A believer, in most Christian sects, believes that theirs is the one true path and that, to varying degrees, everyone else is doomed to some horrible fate. But that belief is rather harsh and difficult to defend in a public forum with many people from different sects, religions, or lack thereof. So some warm fuzzy it's all good statement is made, and then because it really can't be defended and it is dishonest, when questioned the evasions start.

[el_bryanto]

65. I responded to your question above.

[Prophet 451]

152. Pascal's Wager has a flaw even Pascal noted

One cannot force oneself to believe.

[Phlem]

104. You know what,

it's probably in the seventh level of heaven in wife #35's place behind the bookcase.

Correction it was in a hat somewhere, some kind of .......stone yea, that's it! I now am more special than the rest of yueww.

Oh yeah, load and clear in everyone of their attitudes.

This is why you must first belong to the religion/cult first before receiving any type of service. If your not a member or aren't practicing, then your fucked and I've seen this first hand.

Then you get threatened for leaving. Excommunication, the best thing since sliced bread, did Jesus invent that? How loving and caring.

<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo facepalm_zps11cff47e.jpg"/></a>

[Brettongarcia]

40. Interesting though; this means that firm believers also have to be wrong.

Since they are asserting something that cannot be proved.

[el_bryanto]

5. Could you post a link to statement #1? Who made that argument?

Who specifically said that we shouldn't look for life on mars?

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

23. You do agree that "because there is no way to prove or disprove

the existence of life outside our own planet" was uttered, right?

The obvious implication is that the biologics experiments on Mars, for example, are a complete waste of time.

[el_bryanto]

29. I didn't see a link to it and I didn't come across it

I'm sure somebody at some point has said that. But whether or not they were a believer in this forum, I couldn't say.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Well, the poster doesn't profess to be a believer but.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126722#post28

[el_bryanto]

32. Ah so you think that poster was literally arguing that there is no life on other planets

because we can't prove it's existence.

Not sure that's what was being argued, but if it was, than that's pretty foolish.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

33. That is exactly what was argued.

It was a mash up of some not so clever theist talking point gone wrong.

On edit: exactly what was being argued was that it is unprovable.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. It was a broken analogy.

[AlbertCat]

46. It was a broken analogy.

Indeed.

Especially since we know life actually exists ...somewhere.

However, gods and the supernatural.... not so much....or at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. It's been a fascinating week, hasn't it?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Today I learned that rejecting bigotry, makes me a bigot myself.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. I've learned that a lot on DU.

Obviously from people who are much less mundane than I am.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Today is revealing yet more fascinating truths!

Apparently considering religious belief to be a delusion is indistinguishable from gender 'reparation therapy'.


Because you know, the word Delusion is ONLY defined in the DSM-V and has no common, non-clinical meaning outside of that one singular definition. Also, the bigot smear thing didn't work out, so today it's time to try a new tack apparently.

[el_bryanto]

43. Link please? nt

[Phlem]

109. The thing I've learned over time is

They are more "lost" than they think they are "found" and also that, "I'm better than you, dick." is a pervasive attitude for the non -thinkers.

That's just 2.



-p

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Maybe I watched too much Sci-Fi; but ...

I have no problem with the biologics experiments ... so long as none of the materials gathered are ever returned to Earth.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Why not? Pieces of mars have ended up on earth long before human spaceflight of any sort.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Because, maybe, I've watched too much Sci-Fi. ...

I feel much better about Martian materials that crashed into Earth after being heated and burning while entering to Earth's atmosphere ... than, having Martian materials delivered in climate controlled environments.

Again, the Sci-Fi stuff, but Human-kind won't/may not get the benefit of a "Oops", when dealing with extra-terrestrial material.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Fair enough.

I've read/watched a fair number of those stories myself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. I never really got over my middle school view of ...

The Andromeda Strain !

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/

[LostOne4Ever]

147. Today I learned I am far too trusting

and am pissed off because I actually felt sorry for someone who was trolling from the beginning.

[Goblinmonger]

148. FWIW

All three hosts initially thought it was an innocent mistake and wanted to just discuss it in messages with them about why it was inappropriate. And before we could do that, they ran here.

I guess I'm trying to say it happens to the most cynical and jaded of us.

[Phlem]

149. Too Trusting!?

HA!



-p

[Phlem]

150. 3. It's

ok to bash other religions as long as your with us.

Oh yes, one uses all means when recruiting.



-p

[Prophet 451]

151. What the huh?

1) Life can easily be proven by, well, finding some. It can't be disproven though because we will never be able to survey the entire universe (multiverse?).

2) I don't even understand what you're trying to say there.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. I agree that (2) was just astounding.

However it was clearly stated that racism might not be "real" racism if the racist thought there were valid reasons for being a racist. It was a keyboard splattering moment that generally only occurs during one of the interminable Defense of Religious Idiocy arguments here.

[Prophet 451]

156. Even as a believer, I don't follow it

Being a person of faith doesn't mean having to turn off your brain or accept every bullshit thing other theists come up with.

[Warren Stupidity]

159. well, the problem is really "wagon circling".

And when the perception is that religion is under attack, all sorts of ridiculous arguments are made.