This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Religion

Post by Monday

My response.

Orson Scott Card is a mormon? Wow, the more you know.

Yeah, as is Brandon Sanderson. As a matter of fact, Sanderson teaches at BYU right now, and Card was an editor there for awhile.

E: Also, MyTie, if you don't want to read it all, skip to the section on language.

Post by Magician22773

I would also like to add that analogies do not always equal insults

I think that if the handfull of people that the analogy personally affects, all make it clear that it is taken as an insult, that makes it an insult, regardless of how you want to explain it.

It may be an unintentional insult, or it may not be insulting to the majority of the people in the discussion, but several people have said it is insulting to have our God compared to.....anything.

You don't need any other term to make your position more clear. I get it. We all get it.

You do not believe in God because you have not been shown sufficient proof of His existence. If that proof were avaliable, your position would likely change.

There is nothing in that statement that is, or should be, offensive to me, or anyone else. And I think it describes what your belief is.

Post by fenomas

Again, my only goal is to demonstrate WHY you are encountering the issue you are. I understand perfectly WHY you use the unicorn example. I get it.
I don't believe you, because you keep saying things like this:
Imagine two people were getting married and you mocked them and said there was no proof of their love, and they might as well believe in unicorns.
You're religion is like X. Not going to help any discussion.

No comment regarding unicorns has been made that resemble those, in this thread or any other I know of. They do not resemble what is under discussion; they shed no light on what anyone takes offense at.

So yes, I am going to reiterate: The unicorn example (as I use it) is not being used to explain to the listener anything about god, how I view god, or why I don't believe in god. It is used to explain why I call myself an atheist even though I do not deny the possibility that god may exist (which is something people including Mytie have taken issue with in). Nothing else.

So if you could comment on what you think people find offensive about that without implying that any mocking or overbroad comparison to religion has been made, I'd appreciate it.

I'm amazed, though, that you don't understand WHY religious people would take offense to it.
The main reason is because I don't see how my analogy is different from, e.g., the comparison made by a Christian author linked in the thread's opening pages. You and others have suggested that all comparisons involving religion and unicorns are offensive, but that theory doesn't fit the evidence.

Post by Adamsm

So if you could comment on what you think people find offensive about that without implying that any mocking or overbroad comparison to religion has been made, I'd appreciate it.

You and others have suggested that all comparisons involving religion and unicorns are offensive, but that theory doesn't fit the evidence.See...both of those comments show the offense more then anything else. You take a mythical made up animal, mind you though, said animal was in the Bible and try to use it as a reason to show why you think God doesn't exist. You may as well go whole hog and compare God to the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy while you are at.

If you don't see why it's offensive to those who have a religious belief, maybe you should look a lot harder.

Post by fenomas

A few footnotes:
I wasnt refering to you, i was refering to people who continue to persist in using these examples, in the same thread where they were already called out on it more than once.
Nobody is doing that. The unicorn comparison was used a long time ago in a thread far, far away. Here we are simply meta-discussing its worth or offensiveness.
...I personally believe all of the mythical beasts and races are still out there somewhere; they are just really good at hiding. And hearing Unicorns being used in this idiotic way, just makes my blood boil.
I don't see why - nobody said unicorns don't exist, just that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them. But (here comes my catchphrase) please do let me know if there's a word you'd prefer.

Post by fenomas

You take a mythical made up animal, mind you though, said animal was in the Bible and try to use it as a reason to show why you think God doesn't exist.

...seriously? From the quote you're replying to:

The unicorn example (as I use it) is not being used to explain to the listener anything about god, how I view god, or why I don't believe in god.

Post by asakawa

This is getting a little ridiculous.

I made it plain on page two of this thread that the use of this analogy is entirely legitimate. The recently presented arguments against it are, I think, misunderstanding and misrepresenting its use but since it has not actually been used in this thread I ask that the thread completely drops that line of discussion.

Analogy is a legitimate conversational tool and I can't accept that it should be disallowed here. Being offended doesn't mean that the point was wrong to be made or even made badly. However, I'm quite sure that, now knowing the potential sensitivity to it, it will be used carefully and sparingly from now on. So let's move on and only tackle it if it comes up.

If it wasn't clear already:
Drop the unicorn. Move on.

As with other threads, this one is becoming needlessly combative and when that happens it becomes a problem.
Think carefully about posts you make in this thread please. Talk to each other. Don't talk about stuff that's made you made in the past or people that have offended you in other threads or even off the forum. Put it behind you and take the opportunity to share ideas and learn a thing or two from others.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Post by Atik

Alright, since unicorn is obviously a bad idea, why not use something that is often a topic of debate between skeptics and beleivers?

Aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster?

Just tossing out some ideas here, because some sort of source of comparison is usually useful in such debates.

Post by hatman555

I would also like to add that analogies do not always equal insults

Original post

Hey Magician. I just want to clear a couple things out.

I am not posting in this topic as a debater. I am purposefulness staying out of it, because in the long run of it, if I don't get involved, then I can come back to it later and moderate it with a more even hand.
You quoted me, and then you started using words like "you" and "yours" a lot. I hope you were talking to the rest of the people in the topic, and not to me. I don't think you know what my believes are because I've never commented about them. As I said in point #1: I'm sitting this one out.
On a final note, I put in the paragraph about analogies because it was a small hint that people were using them the wrong way in some cases. They were becoming insulting. YET, if they are used right, they are not meant to be insulting, no mater what the conversation topic is.

Cheers,
Hat

Post by Magician22773

Sorry Hat, I don't want to defy a direct order from a mod.

If it wasn't clear already:
Drop the unicorn. Move on.

Post by hatman555

Sorry Hat, I don't want to defy a direct order from a mod.

If it wasn't clear already:
Drop the unicorn. Move on.

Lol, it's ok. Just wanted to make sure you understood that I was not taking sides, and will not be for the duration of this thread. Your post quoting me before seem as if you were speaking to me, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case. As always you can contact me through if you feel there is anything else we need to talk about.

Cheers,
Hat

Post by MyTie

Where was God in Aurora?
I agree with the free will argument. If God is going to stop the really bad injustice, He might as well stop all injustice. If He does that, then I cannot do anything wrong. If I cannot disobey Him, and I can only love Him, then I have no option. If I have no option but to love Him, then that is forced, and is not truly love. In order for love to exist, there has to be the option to hate. If there is the option to hate, some will.

@Funden - Thank you for your reply. I find it questionable, at best, that the italicized usage of the King James Version in the book of Mormon is "learned grammar".

When the editors of the King James Version of the Bible inserted a word into the scripture, they italicized it, as a way of letting the reader know that the word wasn't in the original Greek text. When the divine and inspired word came to Joseph Smith, it included those words, as if God had amended His word to include the words that the modern editors had placed in the King James Version. Even more suspicious is that the transcriptions included the words in italics. It seems far more likely to me that Joseph Smith was copying a version of the King James version of the Bible for his book, than his book was inspired by God, or it wouldn't have had the inaccuracies of the King James version, verbatim.

Again, this isn't about grammar. It is about exact word usage. This, and similar suspicious entries in the book of Mormon are things that immediately shut down my desire to study more about the Latter-Day Saints. I'd love to be given a reason as to why these anomalies exist. I think that your religion has brought out a great society of leaders. I have a lot of respect for the Mormon people. I simply have serious doubts about the fundamentals of their religion. You being one of them (the only one I personally converse with), are a great teacher for me.

Post by EnigmaPunch

MyTie, you seem like you are well read in a lot of religions, so I wonder what are your thoughts on the Church of Scientology?

Also, what is your take on the story that Tom Cruise basically giving Katie Holmes whatever she wanted in the divorce to protect the Church stop investigators digging into it?

Was he really that desperate to keep the Church affairs private? Or is it more of a media beat up?

Post by MyTie

Post by fenomas

Scientology is the first post-modern church in a lot of ways. I guess it's not so widely known, but the fact that they have a bunch of hollywood celebrity converts is the result of a deliberate gambit started by the great LRH himself (he called it "project celebrity", and started it back in the 50s).

The only thing I find weird about Scientology is the way some people will deride it, but then e.g. say something nice about the current Pope. Scientology is kind of fun to focus on, being a circus and all, but when it comes to doing damage to the world, things like going to Africa to preach against condoms win the prize.

Post by EnigmaPunch

MyTie, you seem like you are well read in a lot of religions, so I wonder what are your thoughts on the Church of Scientology?I think the origins of the church are suspect. It's history was one of intimidation and even kidnapping. It's requirement to give large sums of money to advance in the church is, as well, suspect. Finally, their legal history is tough. There was a hotline for people who wanted to escape cults, and scientology was one of the cults. They sued the hotline, which caused it to go bankrupt, and then bought it, and started answering the phones themselves. There is something ironic in that. You call to try to escape scientology, and guess what, you get the Church of Scientology.

We don't seem to have a lot of infirmation here in Australia, more than what we read coming out of the US, although I do beleive it exists here.

What I have read though seems to make it sound like it is crossing the line from religion, into cult. But I wondered if it really was that way, or if it was just the way the media was portaying it.

And wow, I didn't know about that hotline story, but yeah, there seems to be a huge conflict of interest there.

Also, what is your take on the story that Tom Cruise basically giving Katie Holmes whatever she wanted in the divorce to protect the Church stop investigators digging into it?

Was he really that desperate to keep the Church affairs private? Or is it more of a media beat up?

I couldn't care less.

Ok, I guess that was more related to the little information that I have read. He just seems to be one of the highest profile targets that there seems to be a lot of media about.

I was curious as to why someone would go to what seems to me such extreme measures to hide their religion, when I thought the point of religion was to be open to everyone. Or do I misunderstand that?

Post by yukonjack

I agree with the free will argument. If God is going to stop the really bad injustice, He might as well stop all injustice. If He does that, then I cannot do anything wrong. If I cannot disobey Him, and I can only love Him, then I have no option. If I have no option but to love Him, then that is forced, and is not truly love. In order for love to exist, there has to be the option to hate. If there is the option to hate, some will.

That is all well and fine though I think incredibly self serving based on your stated beliefs. It allows you to wrap it all up in a nice neat little package using sweeping generalizations and an analogy simplified to the point of a frustrated parent telling a toddler "because I said so"

For the record I believe in God if God is defined as the essence of pure love and goodness and consequently the devil if defined as pure evil and hatred, much the same as I believe in the physical laws of magnets having both a positve and negative charge, I have witnessed both in my life and do not dispute either. I do not however believe in organized worship of some singular omnipotent being that would be so petty as to actually bother to take attendance and pay more attention to those praising Him with extra zeal and cast those not paying attention to Him into an eternity of darkness and isolation, and if I am wrong then we as humans must surely be made in His image, petty, vindictive and self serving.

I would also like to remind everyone of the telephone game, you know the one where you whisper a message in your friends ear and tell them to pass it on and by the time it reaches the 6th person down the line the content of the orginal message is lost and the current message contains only what the 6th person thought they heard. This is essentially scripture as we know it today as most of it was not written down until 3 centuries after the time of Christ, and certain books were not included because it did not serve the purpose of those in power at the time.

TLDR: What if the word was actually celebrate and not celibate!

Post by MyTie

That is all well and fine though I think incredibly self serving based on your stated belief.

Self serving? As if I've never suffered at the hands of others? As if it makes it easier for me? Oh, I've suffered. It would be self serving to blame anyone, anything, even God. But I don't. I use reason, even though, it isn't easier. I accept that ^&*!@# bag with a gun has the free will, just as I do. As much as I want to see my enemies punished, I understand that God loves them equally to me. That isn't self serving. No. That is pain. I accept that pain. I warp nothing for my comfort. If God allows that man to hurt people, and God allows people to hurt me, and the ones I love, then that is God's decision. It is His way of allowing free will. It hurts, but it is other people's decisions. There is nothing warped into this for my comfort, and I would like nothing more than to blame God and wash my hands of it.

Do me a favor, and read the book of Job. Find a Bible, and read it. That is how I feel. Then come back here and tell me how I feel.

Post by FatalHeaven

I found this article tonight and was wondering how others might feel about it or what opinion they may have of the decisions made.

For me, it bothers me slightly because it seems to formulate a double standard on the requirements of priesthood.

Post by Orranis

You do not believe in God because you have not been shown sufficient proof of His existence. If that proof were avaliable, your position would likely change.

That's not the point. The point is that you believe in God on faith, but disregard other equally valid concepts on faith.

It's not used to show there's not enough evidence to believe in God, it's used to show why the burden of proof lies on the believer, simply because of the ridiculousness of the alternative.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##Those in this thread have been asked to drop the "unicorn" reference as to avoid further confrontation. Please honor that request, thank you!

Religion

Post Reply