EricE

@NeedleinA Just nothing else to add on this particular thread. Don't know what you mean about Facebook, though. I still see everything.

Ah. The "no true Scotsman fallacy." Nice! Korihor died after he was rendered incapable of performing his occupation and was forced to become a begger, which led to his death. Was he burned at the stake? No. But I still call that martyrdom.

He sought to destroy the church? Like, physically? Or is that the Book of Mormon's description of someone who was swaying believers to think something else. That doesn't sound like persecution to me, I don't see any verses describing the beating of believers or of Korihor saying believers should be punished. So why was he arrested just because he believed something else and was open about speaking about it?

As I understand my LDS theology, the results of the two plans were the same: returning to heaven, no? But in one plan, everyone just does the right thing, and in the other they choose. So I imagine you meant the process of god's plan is preferable, not the result, right?

Speaking as a biologist, it most certainly is. Have you ever observed any other social species? They all have moral systems (more primitive, of course). Life is preferable to death. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. An individual's well being is better served by being alive than to die. That is a moral absolute. Now, are there situations where the more moral thing might be to let a person die, even though it damages their well being? Yes. And that's why I described the difference between our objective moral foundations, and our subjective moral system we build on it. Morality is incredibly nuanced, and it feels like you're trying to boil it down into something overly simplistic.

This is my first time on these forums, so I don't know how to do that nifty trick of breaking up the other person's response into chunks to reply to. So hopefully you can just tell which I'm replying to here. Because carrot & stick morality isn't morality, it's doing what you're told under threat of punishment or reward. Morality implies understand, empathy, judgement. Surrendering your humanity to follow instructions isn't moral. I do have kids, yes. And I think the metaphor is a good one. When a child learns how to empathize, how to think through the consequences of their actions (and I'm not equating consequences in this instance to punishment), their morality improves. I would be willing to bet these are things you are trying to teach your own kids. There are of course times when we just say "don't do that," but that isn't the end of the discussion. We don't just hand our kids written commands saying "stealing is bad" and consider our job as parents over. That's not morality, that's robotic. Since secular morality has existed since long before Christianity, I don't think you can just claim it as judeo-christian. As for the idea that it is debunked because there are immoral people in the world, that argument seems a little on the absurd side. Just because we are constantly improving as a society, doesn't mean that everyone will always follow the day's morality, one can't just jump to the extreme of the example and call that reflective of the whole. I could mention that more people have been killed over a god than any other, but that wouldn't exactly be reflective of all religious people. I don't see how you can say things in our secular society haven't improved. We have abolished slavery, we have established universal education, we try not to let people die in poverty, etc. There is (and will always be) huge room for improvement, but the institution that typically seems to be holding us back from the next moral advancement is religion, not secularism. No, my points about god's morality have not been debunked. Just because someone else claims that the god is moral, doesn't make it so. I have never condoned slavery, I have never watched a child being raped and ignored it even though I have the power to stop it. I don't allow thousands of people to die from starvation every single day. Yes, both you and I are far morally superior than the god of the bible and the Book of Mormon (and that's not even being arrogant, it's not hard to do).

Like virtually every other social species, the basic foundational (and objective) morals of well being have already developed. Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, etc. No one decided them, they are objectively moral. How we build upon those foundations is (of course) subjective. And sometimes we get it wrong. But that's why it's important to continue the discussion and debate over our current morality, because that's how we improve. That's how we got rid of slavery (which, by the by, was endorsed by the Christian god), that's how we overcame child abuse as a society, etc. Do we have it right yet? I don't think so. I think it will continue to evolve and improve as long as we exist.

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the bad one?

Very true. But that doesn't make every culture correct about morality. There are objective morals of well being that serve as the foundation of morality, and we grow from there.

@Godless @rpframe I don't agree. I think there are moral absolutes which all can agree on, and they fall back on my argument that morality is founded upon well being (of the individual, society, and the species). Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, etc. Those moral absolutes are objective, and provide a solid foundation. Now, building upon that to broaden the secular moral system we live in is certainly subjective. But that's a good thing, because it allows us to grow as we learn more. That doesn't mean we'll always get it right, but that's why morality should be viewed as a complex and ever changing (and improving) framework.

I love Korihor. The second freethinker in the Book of Mormon to be martyred. Tell me, since Alma 30 spends a lot of time talking about how it supposedly wasn't illegal to believe other things, why was Korihor arrested? Also, if Alma 30:48 is evidence of the existence of a god, then please demonstrate it. I don't even need to be struck dumb, haha. But the only rational position on any assertion is to withhold belief until the truth of the proposition has been demonstrated.

I was not implying there's no evidence of evolving intelligence, however there is no evidence of intelligence that has evolved beyond man. Is it possible that somewhere out in the universe? I don't know, I can't say that it's impossible. But just because something is impossible, that does not make it possible. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that something is probable, if you have no examples of that thing ever happening. We predict when an earthquake is probable, because we have evidence of earthquakes happening previously. We know when it's likely to rain (unless you're the local tv weatherman!!), because we have evidence of it raining period. We have no examples of a god happening previously, nor do we have examples of intelligence beyond man, so we cannot with any reliability demonstrate the probability of such a thing.

I didn't see this earlier. Sorry about that. I think trying to boil down morality to something "simple" is part of the problem. Morality isn't simple, it's a complex framework that constantly changes through discussion and debate as we continue to learn more. This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral. Moral edicts are not moral systems to live by. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why. For example, if you take two children to a restaurant and they both go crazy, throwing water and screaming, etc., both need to learn not to do that. But if one child is sat down and given just the god-like carrot or stick (don't do that again or no dessert, or if you don't do that again you'll get dessert), and the other child is talked to and discussed why misbehaving like that was the wrong way to act and how it affected others, which child actually has a moral understanding of their actions? Both children may now behave at the restaurant. But the one with the understanding is more likely to behave because they understand why behaving in one way is better and how their actions affect others, while the other child is only going to behave as long as their parents are there so the reward or punishment is looming. Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species. As time goes by, and our understanding of the world grows, we are able to expand and improve our morality through discussion, and debate. That is why secular morality has led us out of the days of slavery, and chips abuse, and other inhumane practices that we have learned to discard. And that's what makes secular morality a superior moral system, rather than mere moral edicts. It may be comforting to think of morality as something simple, as "I just have to do what an authority figure tells me to do." But morality is not simple, and should not be treated so. As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery, commits and commands genocide, who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the LDS version or the standard Christian hell) if I don't worship and praise him when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? I would call that god a moral thug, and one unworthy of my praise because I'm more moral than he is.

That's true. But the original topic I started with led us here, I think. We've established that morality doesn't not require a god, which took us to why then is god moral if he acts in seemingly immoral ways, which can't be argued against unless first the existence of a god is established. That's not convoluted in any way, right?

Well you haven't argued against anything I've said yet, only against things I haven't said. But ok.

I don't mind the gang up part (I'm on LDS.net after all), it's the misaccusations and disinformation.

@Traveler This will work much better if you don't call me dumb in every post, don't you think? Your response didn't solve the flaw I pointed out in the probability equation, namely that you cannot determine the probability of something for which you have no example of it happening. The fact that intelligence exists in us does not open the door to claim there is a higher intelligence, because you have no example of intelligence evolving past human intelligence.

If I'm misunderstanding the purpose behind your comment, apologies. But I almost think it would be fair to say that more than any other discussion I've ever had with a group of theists, I've found this one to be the most frustrating. You and a handful of others have been the exception, but far more seem to only be interested with accusing me of things we haven't even discussed, dodging requests for evidence, or making sweeping generalizations.

Yup. That's called pointing out a logical fallacy. Sorry if your feelings were hurt, though (seriously). I get techy when people start making up things I've supposedly said. I find it fantastically dishonest.

I'm fine phrasing it however you would like. The root of my question is about what the underlying reasons of a belief is, and whether they be demonstrated to be true.

Is there an example of me calling someone an idiot, or stupid, or moron? etc. Accusing someone of falling into the argument from ignorance fallacy isn't an attack on their character. It's a recognition of a logical fallacy. And since I was responding to roughly the 11th time on this thread I have been accused of holding to beliefs or claims I do not and have not made, I don't particularly feel the need to kiss anyone's stubbed toes. I have not claimed my "side" (I really don't have a side) is more intelligent, nor have I at any point claimed a theistic viewpoint is stupid or evil. I have asked merely for a demonstration of evidence.

I'm sorry, did you not post "God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, 'prove it', prove he didn't. " If you'd like to accurately describe your position, perhaps that would help you join the conversation without sounding like a troll.

You have experience? Sounds like confirmation bias based on those you have directly met or interacted with.

While I don't doubt your ability to complete the equations, there is no way to actually demonstrate the probability of the supernatural through fractals, a bayesian analysis, or any other technique, because the equation is fundamentally flawed. One cannot demonstrate the probability or likelihood of something for which we have no examples of happening. What is the probability that leprechauns exist? Well, if I give the fact that rainbows exist a +1 in favor of leprechauns, then they become possible or probable.

It's a big thread, and I'm responding to a lot of people. If you have evidence for the existence of a god, I'd love to hear it.