The Truth about Mormons

[ima]

What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?

"To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.

You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.

If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.

 

[daws101]

There is an easy way to validate what they saw:



That is ultimately the only way to know.

Their words and action support their testimony. But the only way to know for sure is to go to the Lord for yourself. There will be many more who will see and feel the plates before the end.

first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog and people therein are fiction...
I guess you're right believing totally false scripture is easy.

Im pretty sure when God reveals to you: "I'm God and this stuff is true" It's a pretty safe conclusion that it's a fact despite what you want to claim.

Again, just because you havent had experiences, doesnt mean others haven't. No rational person can conclude otherwise.

another rationalization.
btw I'm not claiming anything, what I am doing is stating fact.. you cannot disprove this statement:"first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog and people therein are fiction..."-me
without resorting to fiction.
btw stop assuming I had no "experiences" define what a god experience is supposed to be like? your use of the word is extremely ambiguous and completely subjective.

 

[daws101]

What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?

"To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.

You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.

If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.

can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)

 

[ima]

"To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.

You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.

If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.

can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)

So it's not the same god because allah doesn't live on kolob.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We watch the biggest true belief gang, the atheists, act like the worst of proselytizers. Buncha sillies.

 

[daws101]

If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.

can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)

So it's not the same god because allah doesn't live on kolob.

It doesn't matter because their all making this shit up as they go along...

 

[daws101]

We watch the biggest true belief gang, the atheists, act like the worst of proselytizers. Buncha sillies.

how is not belief, a belief...?
since, and you said this yourself "there is no proof that good doesn't exist"-JS
just as importantly, it also means there is no proof that god exists.
like everything else if a god existed there would be an unmistakable sign of it presence.
there is none.
everything god is credited for doing has been and can be explained by other means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

 

[daws101]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

 

[ima]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

Which makes the only sane position to have is to be an agnostic, which to me means someone who sees no proof either way of a god existing or the non-existence of a god, but if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you believe he does not exist.

 

[daws101]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

Which makes the only sane position to have is to be an agnostic, which to me means someone who sees no proof either way of a god existing or the non-existence of a god, but if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind.

I was once agnostic but to me it seemed like a half measure...
besides if any incontrovertible evidence either way was found was not enough to change a persons mind then nothing would.

 

[daws101]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it. Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you believe he does not exist.

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

false assumption. but nice rationalizing.

It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you believe he does not exist.

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you believe he does not exist.

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.

The premise stands because no can fault its logic.

 

[daws101]

It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you believe he does not exist.

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.

wrong again, I said there is no evidence to prove god exists...Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1

a : to have a firm religious faith

b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

since there is no evidence either way the term believe does not apply

 

[Hollie]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

They certainly can prove gods don't exist. At least I can.

Prove I can't.

 

[daws101]

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.

The premise stands because no can fault its logic.

I just did, whether you accept it or not.


Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.



Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm

 

[JakeStarkey]

The premise stands because you can't refute it.

Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.

You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else. Sorry, girl, da way it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.

You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.

wrong again, I said there is no evidence to prove god exists...Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1

a : to have a firm religious faith

b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

since there is no evidence either way the term believe does not apply

Your definition......
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts> . You ACCEPT the statement that God does not exist. Thus you accept as true the statement God does not exist. You BELIEVE that God does not exist.

Pretty simple concept really.