The problem with Moroni's challenge

[_Themis]

see my buffalo response.
and i believe i have addressed the Moroni issue, but please, be specific as to where you think i have not.

start by viewing my own posts to you about it.

[_Themis]

then by all means, explain.
and for the record, i am not a science hater...i just do not worship science.

Fact about atheism:
1. Requires a rejection of the belief in the existence of any and all deities, and that there are, in fact "no" deities.

No, you went to far. It's simply lack of belief. That doesn't mean you have to say there are for sure no deities.

2. The word literally means "without god"

Yes.


3. Atheist confirm nothing without empirical evidence, thus the supernatural is, at best, the source of skepticism, usually the source of disregard.

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true

4. Atheist are amoral (not immoral, but amoral).

Completely false


5. Atheist are an overwhelming minority.

True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category.

6. Aside from notes 1 and 2 above, atheism has no real unifying principle or meaning, they often exist just as defined by being "the contrary".

Actually, just number 2

7. Atheism, when buttressed by the insistence of truth being defined only by empirical evidence and that the laws of nature can not be transgressed, logically requires that freedom to choose otherwise is an illusion and that independent original thought is impossible. Human beings are chemical reactions which can never truly "act" but must only "react" in a manner that is completely predictable and prescribed.

Has nothing to do with atheism.

8. i propose that it is you that actually does not understand what atheism "is".

As an atheist who just schooled you on atheism, I reject that premise

:)

Not really that hard to understand if your open minded enough, but some just have to believe soemthing about another group that they don't believe themselves. Here he is telling Buffalo, an admitted atheist what he must believe in, rather then actually ask to learn.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_NeoMorm]

http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/book-of-mormon.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r003.html

Nowhere does the Bible ever direct the believing Christian to pray about the truthfulness of any book, religious or otherwise. This however, does not mean that it is wrong to pray and ask God for guidance regarding any truth-claim, but because the Holy Spirit will only confirm that which is true, it is erroneous to assume the Spirit's confirmation if reality conflicts with the assumed conclusion.

I thought this was interesting. So what they are saying here is only pray about stuff you can prove otherwise. I suppose that's why one doesn't pray about the Bible. There is enough evidence against it as well, the intellect says it can't be true so don't bother with the whole prayer thing.

The one who is challenged must accept the book as true otherwise his integrity is placed under suspicion.

Yeah, I really hate this actually. Whenever I bring up any question as the Heretic Neo-Mormon that I am, I get the business from my kool-aid drinking friends. "So, what SIN are you hiding?" The implication is that the stronger your Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith testimony, the closer to perfect you are. All the rest of your sins are irrelevant.

I can see where you are coming from, but reject the idea that the Book of Mormon is "unprovable" either way. If enough doubt could be created then it might be possible, but I doubt that enough could be if I'm completely honest. The Mormon side and arguments just aren't very convincing to someone who hasn't been brought up as a Mormon in my experience and opinion.

Fair enough, I would just would assume the same applies to the Bible in that case.

Just because they have this perception however doesn't mean that they are actually a threat in my opinion.

Thanks for those sites, I found them to be an interesting read. Based on the research I found on religion trends, it may not matter as we'll all be Muslim by 2050 anyway.

[_subgenius]

No, you went to far. It's simply lack of belief. That doesn't mean you have to say there are for sure no deities.

you make no sense. Are you asserting that an atheist will admit that a deity(s) is possible? The admission of the possibility is contrary to the definition of "disbelief". "might be true" is not the same as "is not true".

3. Atheist confirm nothing without empirical evidence, thus the supernatural is, at best, the source of skepticism, usually the source of disregard.

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true

so, to an atheist, something can be confirmed without empirical evidence? Pray tell.

4. Atheist are amoral (not immoral, but amoral).

Completely false

On the contrary. Atheists, apart from having no real unifying principles, have little regard for the the questions or principles of what is right and wrong. An atheist may only, ultimately, justify a concern for right and wrong as being, not from principle, but from bio-chemistry. So, a true atheist has little regard for actual "moral standards", which by definition are founded on principles, and these "principles" an atheist can neither provide nor reasonably support.

5. Atheist are an overwhelming minority.

True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category.

you have no evidence, as usual, to support that speculation.

7. Atheism, when buttressed by the insistence of truth being defined only by empirical evidence and that the laws of nature can not be transgressed, logically requires that freedom to choose otherwise is an illusion and that independent original thought is impossible. Human beings are chemical reactions which can never truly "act" but must only "react" in a manner that is completely predictable and prescribed.

Has nothing to do with atheism.

sure it does, the atheist has not other plausible, reasonable, rational justification.


Interestingly enough, an atheist would proclaim that they would only support belief in that which has reasonable evidence, to believe in that which has a degree of certainty that would incline one to act as if it were true (an ironic leap of faith on their part). However, they can not justify why they insist on their own position. When one looks at the evidence in a rational manner it would seem that being an atheist is a position of uncertainty. The atheist exists as a minority population. History has shown that the longevity of those who are atheist is often cut short or marked with persecution, torture, imprisonment, and conquering. This has been a recurring notion through history and across cultures. In light of evidence that produces a reasonable amount of certainty as to their inevitable position, they remain ever faithful to their cause.
Seems that rhyme and reason are no means to define the atheist at all.

[_subgenius]

Not really that hard to understand if your open minded enough, but some just have to believe soemthing about another group that they don't believe themselves. Here he is telling Buffalo, an admitted atheist what he must believe in, rather then actually ask to learn.

Another perfect example of Mormons practicing what they preach. Who should you ask if you want to get accurate information about an organization or group Subgenius? Should you ask them what they believe or should you ask their critics?

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

actually would it not be imperative for someone such as yourself to ask both and decide for yourself ?.....after you have taken in all information.....and are free from distraction.....where you can truly concentrate......where nothing but the still quiet voice within can reveal to you the truth. ;)

[_Buffalo]

No, you went to far. It's simply lack of belief. That doesn't mean you have to say there are for sure no deities.

you make no sense. Are you asserting that an atheist will admit that a deity(s) is possible? The admission of the possibility is contrary to the definition of "disbelief". "might be true" is not the same as "is not true".

Yes, most atheists will admit that it's possible that there might be god(s). We just have seen no compelling evidence for it so far. Apparently you don't know what atheism is.

3. Atheist confirm nothing without empirical evidence, thus the supernatural is, at best, the source of skepticism, usually the source of disregard.

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true
so, to an atheist, something can be confirmed without empirical evidence? Pray tell.

What I mean is that there are many atheists who DO believe in the supernatural. In things like ghosts and afterlives. Buddhists are atheists, and they definitely believe in the supernatural.

4. Atheist are amoral (not immoral, but amoral).

Completely false

On the contrary. Atheists, apart from having no real unifying principles, have little regard for the the questions or principles of what is right and wrong. An atheist may only, ultimately, justify a concern for right and wrong as being, not from principle, but from bio-chemistry. So, a true atheist has little regard for actual "moral standards", which by definition are founded on principles, and these "principles" an atheist can neither provide nor reasonably support.

What theists do is prop up a theoretical third party's opinions about right and wrong (ie God) and pretend that's a more objective standard than the real life sources of right and wrong - ie human instinct and social tradition. I would posit that our evolved sense of empathy is a much more objective standard of right and wrong than the subjective opinion of some minor bronze age tribal god.

5. Atheist are an overwhelming minority.

True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category.
you have no evidence, as usual, to support that speculation.

Sure I do - the fact that belief requires a certain level of cognitive analysis, which babies don't have.

7. Atheism, when buttressed by the insistence of truth being defined only by empirical evidence and that the laws of nature can not be transgressed, logically requires that freedom to choose otherwise is an illusion and that independent original thought is impossible. Human beings are chemical reactions which can never truly "act" but must only "react" in a manner that is completely predictable and prescribed.

Has nothing to do with atheism.
sure it does, the atheist has not other plausible, reasonable, rational justification.

Any atheist is 100% free to believe or disbelieve in free will. Sames goes for theists. It's an unrelated argument.

Interestingly enough, an atheist would proclaim that they would only support belief in that which has reasonable evidence, to believe in that which has a degree of certainty that would incline one to act as if it were true (an ironic leap of faith on their part). However, they can not justify why they insist on their own position. When one looks at the evidence in a rational manner it would seem that being an atheist is a position of uncertainty. The atheist exists as a minority population. History has shown that the longevity of those who are atheist is often cut short or marked with persecution, torture, imprisonment, and conquering. This has been a recurring notion through history and across cultures. In light of evidence that produces a reasonable amount of certainty as to their inevitable position, they remain ever faithful to their cause.
Seems that rhyme and reason are no means to define the atheist at all.

It appears that you know next to nothing about atheism. Hopefully you'll take this encounter as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes.