DiscussMormonism.com

Yes, I differ with Dawkins on this point. We need religion, because of people like this:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 24928&st=0

Log
post Today, 11:26 AM


Do you affirm that all that exists is comprised solely of particles, forces, and the void?

If so, then why should we not rape children, gas Jews en masse, kill (a)religionists of any stripe, or, in fine, do whatever the whim (instinct, drive, desire, whatever) strikes us to?

If you do not affirm it, then what else exists besides particles, forces, and the void?

Theists who believe that atheism equals the justification for following whatever whim strikes us are actually revealing something about themselves: what kind of person they would be as an atheist.

So as long as people like Log are around, thank GOD for religion! Apparently the idea of a Big Daddy in the sky with a stick or carrot is the only thing that motivates him to NOT rape, gas, kill, etc.

Here was the end result of this thread:

Log, the OP was over the top and offensive. Philosophical differences can be discussed without the inflammatory rhetoric.

If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, start over and on a better foot.

Tsk, tsk, Log. Start over.

Does anyone doubt for a microsecond that if any LDS critic had posted such an inflammatory post, he/she would be immediately BANNED?

but, actually, the extreme bias of the moderators pleases me, because it ensures that their LDS participants will be allowed to engage in more bad behavior while the leash is tighter on critics, ironically ensuring the very thing they want to avoid: critics who are much more civil and better behaved than the believers! Great PR job!!!

I know. That was a new low. And there's been alot of "lows" over there lately.

I don't think Log is dangerous, just inflamatory. In his own words on a related thread:

I was an atheist, like you, once. I was consistent. I never had a desire to kill people and eat them, so I never did it.

I think Log is trying to prove that even atheists believe (deep down) there is more existence than just a bunch of matter, they are going to be driven to crime, or they are simply irrational. Perhaps by the existence of more than mere matter he may not only mean that perhaps spirit exists, but perhaps that "information" exists as well. From information one could go on to Intelligent Design and from there discredit Darwinism.

At least that's my attempt at understanding Log. He's really hard to understand as he's not much of one for discussion unless you already happen to agree with him. Makes for some very frustrating / boring discussion respectively.

Blixa wrote:I know. That was a new low. And there's been alot of "lows" over there lately.

That's part of the fun of being there sometimes, watching for "new lows." LOL

beastie wrote:...We need religion...

Yes, I agree. But only because people have been brought up to believe that they need religion.

Maybe 1,000 years from now, it will be a thing of the past, as people don't grow up thinking they need it.

I had read that thread. I couldn't believe how incendiary Log was - can he really believe that tripe? At any rate, I at least appreciated those who stepped in to take him to task.

skippy the dead wrote:I had read that thread. I couldn't believe how incendiary Log was - can he really believe that tripe? At any rate, I at least appreciated those who stepped in to take him to task.

He's going at it with Tarski on a similar thread.

Morality can exist just fine without religion. The Greeks had their gods and a completely separate set of ethics.

In my opinion God teaches a higher morality than any we can come up with but the truth is we already have a moral code in us. Those who believe in athiestic evolution tend to class it as a 'herd instinct' or a byproduct of sentience. Most Western theists tie this innate knowledge to God (LDS call it the Light of Christ).

Without religion I don't think I'd turn into a savage. However my understanding of God says that if he were to (impossibly) die I might become that savage assuming the Universe itself would still exist.

Some 'religious' people think that a return to Christian Ethics is needed to save civilization or to create utopia or something like that. I don't think that morality is religion's primary job. It's real job it to develop a relationship with one's creator and to understand what your destiny is. God should never be used lightly. When people try to use religion as a political tool (for good or evil ends) it almost always fails. Strive to know God and prepare for heaven and you might fix Earth in the process. Focus on Earth and you get nothing.

The Nehor wrote:Without religion I don't think I'd turn into a savage. However my understanding of God says that if he were to (impossibly) die I might become that savage assuming the Universe itself would still exist.

Why?

Who Knows wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Without religion I don't think I'd turn into a savage. However my understanding of God says that if he were to (impossibly) die I might become that savage assuming the Universe itself would still exist.

Why?

If my moral center is the Light of Christ if Christ did not exist would it continue to exist? I don't know. This is probably an unanswerable question though. If the impossible happened, what would happen? A pointless question.