A Hypothetical Conversation With a Theist: When The Tables Are Turned

I created this comedic-hypothetical conversation as an example of the fallacy in proof from personal experience and the "you cant prove god doesn't exit" argument.

A Hypothetical Conversation With a Theist: When The Tables are Turned
---------------------------------------------------------

Eric: Hey Jesus did you hear about the new species of ants discovered in Peru?

Jesus: No what about them?

Eric: Well they say the ants carry a chemical in their blood that cures cancer when orally ingested!

Jesus: What no way they discovered a cure for cancer?

Eric: Yes it was in the ants blood all along! Their is only one problem though.

Jesus: What problem?

Eric: The side effects. They say it makes you shit out lizards for a month.

Jesus: What! No freaking way! LOL your crazy what do you mean that the ants make you shit out lizards? You mean like real life lizards as in reptiles?

Eric: Yes they start crawling out of your rectum for an entire month. But they are the small lizards, I don't think it will hurt much anyways, besides it's a cure for cancer!

Jesus: Bro eric, are you sure about this it kinda seems impossible, its not based on science. How the heck is someone going to crap lizards from eating ants? Where do the lizards even come from?

Eric. Oh Jesus stop being such a sceptic.

Jesus: I dont believe you.

Eric: Why not?

Jesus: Your claim doesn't even make sense. This is completely crazy man. So you're saying I eat ants, my cancer is cured, and then I crap lizards for a month? Do the ants transform into the lizards? Sorry I just don't I don't buy it.

Eric: Well Its true!

Jesus: Okay prove it. Until you prove it I don't have to believe you.

Eric: Well can you prove that it is not true Jesus? You don't have all the answers you know!

Jesus: What!!!? That's crazy how am I going to prove that it is not true? You are the one making the claim about ants with blood that cures cancer but cause you to crap lizards for a month, you prove it!

Eric: Well I cant, but i personally believe it, I have had many personal experiences.

Jesus: Like what?

Eric: Well theirs this guy named Joe. Joe says that after eating the ants all this happened to him, and it could happen to you as well. He explained it all to us.

Jesus: Do you know Joe, where can I meet him?

Eric: Well he said he did but he is dead now. Its all in the research papers.

Jesus: What research papers?

Eric: Well they were written a long time ago by a guy who knew a guy who knew some other guy that knew Joe. They said Joe said the ants were real.

Jesus: So no one has spoken to Joe?

Eric: Of course we have! If you think about him really hard he will answer you in your head. Only a fool ignores the voice of Joe.

Jesus: Look Eric this has gone far enough. You are making a bunch of wild claims and have no proof, I have no reason to believe this nonsense!

Eric: But what about Joe? Wont you ask him tonight? I promise he will reveal himself to you if you open your heart and ask him about the ants.

Jesus: You need help eric, i think you're suffering from schizophrenia and experiencing forms of auditory and visual hallucination, you need psychiatric help.

Eric: Whatever I know it's true and I feel sorry for you, if you ever get cancer you will not be healed. And you have not proven to me that these ants don't exist anyways. You are lost.

Jesus: This is stupid. I don't have to prove anything. You made the claim that these ants exist, and that they cure cancer and make you crap lizards. You prove it. Im done with this conversation!

The Mormon Church: Homophobic and Racist

Before I make my argument I would like to assert that there are many beautiful quotes of Gordon Hinckley and Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the LDS church speaking politely and kindly about homosexuality, and maybe even some lectures about the equality of race and the acceptance of Negros in the black-priesthood. We are not concerned with cherry picking here, but rather the truth the rest beyond the vague statements and biblical passages. “You can say red is red 99 times, but if you say red is black even just once there are some questions we need to ask,”

Okay here is what an argument looks like..

I want to base my argument on 2 premises that I will assume are true, and two truth statements that I will attempt to prove.

Premise 1. Anti-Mormon literature can be just as reliable as Mormon literature.

Ω Simply because it is against your church doesn't mean it is wrong. If you were to read a book on anti-socialism, would a socialist be justified in dismissing the truth statements in the book by simply telling people that it is anti-socialism? No. I rest my case. Please stop insinuating that anti-Mormon literature is instantly illegitimate. The source has to be judged based on empirical evidence, not based on what religion it is defending or slamming.

Premise 2. Google is in fact a better source of information than any “1” website, including www.mormon.org.

Ω I went to the website. It doesnt offer much information. It actually seems to be the worst place to get information about the church. I was looking for information about the Curse of Caine, nothing. Nothing about the black priest hood, it just seems to be a recruiting website like if you were to go to Marines.com when thinking about joining the military. The source is usually bias. Every website exists within the matrix of a search engine. Not only do I use google to find mormon.org, I use it to go beyond one particular website, and instead explore thousands of website and thousands of perspectives in order to collect more information and make a better more informed decision. If you care to argue why one website is better than me using google you go ahead and dig that hole yourself, I wont join you

Okay now that my premises have been established, on to my "truth" claims.

My two statements are:

1. The Church of Latter Day Saints believe in the Curse of Caine and the black skin.

2. The Church spreads intolerant messages about homosexuality that conflict with an individuals equal rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Statement 1: The church of latter day saints believe in the Curse of Caine of the black skin.

Although leaders today are trying to tell members that it is not true, it seems they are simply trying to hide and obscure the doctrines of shame. Here is the evidence -

From 1848 until 1978, the leaders (Prophet and Apostles) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught, as doctrine, the following:

*Negroes are the descendants of Cain.

*The Mark of Cain was a black skin, flat nose, and kinky hair.

*Negroes were "less valiant" in the War in Heaven in the Pre-Existence.

*Negroes cannot enter and worship in Mormon Temples until the Curse of Cain is removed.

*Negroes would not get the Priesthood until the Curse of Cain is removed.

Joseph Smith the prophet of the Church of Latter Day Saints speaking on the curse of Caine

"It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).

Smith also stated that

"there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).

What I just offered is beyond reasonable doubt. you would have to destroy this argument to prove your case. Furthermore to clarify some historical biblical references to the account in question about Caine and further make my case based on evidence.

Cain's descendants would have been killed in the great flood, according to Mormons from the late 19th to mid 20th century, Cain's bloodline was preserved on the ark through Egyptus, wife of Ham (son of Noah). The Book of Abraham, accepted by Mormons as part of their canon, is the source of the story of this Egyptus who preserves "the curse as pertaining to the Priesthood" by surviving the flood as Ham's wife.

When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites?"

The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years. The basis used is Genesis 9:18-27:

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Sources
------------------------------------------------------------

Covering up the Curse of Caine:
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/lds/CAIN.html

Black skin and the Curse of Caine:
http://mrm.org/curse-of-cain

The Curse of Cain: the violent legacy of monotheism
By Regina M. Schwartz
http://books.google.com/books?id=hJucbWdEdl8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=curse+of+caine&source=bl&ots=I4FVAt4Mx1&sig=Zjo5ag9kpnUKr5TUsfrnqGTcJz0&hl=en&ei=SHSvTIPyO8P6lwfuqPHoDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Article about the Mormon church denying the Curse of Caine:
http://www.lifeafter.org/curse_of_cain.asp

and

Speech by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legislature concerning the Curse of Caine and racism in the church:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_appendix_a.htm

Wikipedia article on the bible and the Curse of Caine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

------------------------------------------------------------

Statement 2. The Church of Latter Day Saints holds an intolerable doctrine towards homosexuals. Although the members are kind loving people and not always homophobic like my own cousins and many members I have met while living in Salt Lake City Utah, the message that the church and its leader represent conflicts with other individuals freedom, equal rights and civil liberty. The members of the church are representatives of the church and support these teachings. This is an example of someones belief conflicting with someones freedom and civil rights. Here is the evidence:

Top LDS Apostle' Boyd K. Packer: Mormons will always oppose Satan's counterfeit marriages http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDceBHOgm6A&feature=player_embedded

"We do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly.... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." Ernest Wilkinson, president of Brigham Young University, in a 1965 lecture to the BYU student body, titled: "Make Honor your Standard."

Mormonism does not tolerate gays and lesbians. Any Mormon member that confesses homosexuality is automatically forced to appear in front of Church Courts. These Courts then decide whether the homosexual transgressions merit either excommunication or dis-fellowshipping. Mormons who have practiced homosexual intercourse with the same sex are automatically excommunicated. (source 5)

The Mormon Church is firm on its position condemning homosexuality as sinful behavior. One of the tenets of Mormon doctrine is the Law of Chastity. It permits sexual relations only between a husband and wife who are legally married. Marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine too. In the Mormon temple a couple can be married for eternity. This is part of living worthy to inherit the kingdom of God. The Mormon Church issued the document The Family: A Proclamation to the World in 1995. This official statement confirmed, "the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

The Church opposes and campaigns against the extension of marital rights to same-sex couples believing that it would undermine the tradition of heterosexual monogamous marriage (Hinckley, Monson & Faust 2004). Homosexuality is an illness? Speaking to church educators and LDS psychiatrists in 1964, Kimball said, citing a Medical World News article, that "We know such a disease is curable," and that ex-gay Mormons had emerged from the church's counseling programs cured, although the cure was "like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance" (Kimball 1964, p. 13)

Sources

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mormons and Homosexuality:
http://www.whatmormonsbelieve.org/homosexuality.html

Homosexuality and the church of latter day saints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

The LDS church and Homosexuality:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds.htm

Why the Mormon hate the gays:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/11/why_the_mormons.php

and

The Mormon Curtain: Homosexuality in Mormonism
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_homosexuality.html

the Hypocrites of Homosexuality by Orrson Scott – LDS member on why homosexuality should never be tolerated by the church.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have an argument against mine, it can not be based on what you "believe" or your opinions, or even separate research that doesn't directly respond to my claims and evidence. I just presented an overwhelming collection of data, information, evidence, quotes, videos, and sources that you would first have to carefully dissect one by one and "prove" are incorrect before you can even attempt to make your case and begin proposing any "opinions" of your own.

I want to make one thing clear to anyone who is Mormon, or maybe even Christian that opposes gay marriage. The purpose of this argument is not to argue weather homosexuality is wrong or right, or to argue weather exclusion of blacks in the church is wrong or right. It it simply about 2 statements that I have made in this essay. They are simple observations that I hope I have cleared up as to them being evidently true.

The Church of Latter Day Saints does in fact have an intolerable policy against homosexual freedom and the church definitely carries a doctrine which implies division and inferiority of the Negro race. So unless you have arguments about those two simple observations lets not make it an argument about ethics and morality when it is clearly an argument about history and doctrine.

Faith In Western Medicine is Not Faith In God

You know, I don't really know why people believe in the things they believe. Believe me I have tried, I have simply come to learn to accept others and try to help broaden their "thinking perspective" whenever I can or am given the chance.

Faith is a complex thing. It is capable of moving mountains, and yet it is also capable of bringing down twin buildings and destroying thousands of lives. It is a two sided sword, and too many times we want to ignore the side covered with blood. We often romanticize about the beautiful poetry that faith speaks, and brush off the the failed experiments as simply incorrect applications of faith. But they are both very real, the ugly is not just a misinterpretation, it is the product of people taking religion literally.

Every man and woman of faith believes what they believe in the variety of the religious experience based on personal experiences. Faith is not something that we can prove to anyone, this is why it is personal. The problem arrives then when you look at the worlds religions. If we take but a minute to look at the world from the perspective of an outside observer, from beyond the earth, we then begin to understand how Islamic faith is as real to Muslims as it is for Christians. The Mormon's testify that the church of Latter Day Saints is the one true church and that if you read the Book of Mormon a second testament of Jesus Christ and pray to God for answers you too will have the answer from the holy spirit. The Mormons believe in the Curse of Caine, that is in Genesis God cursed Caine with dark skin, and thus black people are a cursed race. They did not allow blacks into the Mormon priesthood until recently in 1978. Jehovahs Witness believe that God has already chosen the anointed 144,000 who will enter the Kingdom of heaven, no more no less (Trillions of humans have existed in history). They also prohibit blood transfusions that can save hundreds of members lives each year, they believe it is up to the "Christian scientist to decide" (God). The Dingambar follow a practice of wearing no cloth. They are wearing the environment. Digambaras believe that this practice represents a refusal to give in to the body’s demands for comfort and private property. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that any form of birth control, other than natural family planning (the rhythm method) is a sin. The Catholic church sends their missionaries to Africa, where in some cities the aids ratio is 1/3 of the population, and teaches that aids is bad but condoms are worse. People believe this based on faith. Faith in God, faith in the doctrine, and most importantly faith in the "personal experiences" that have lead them to their religion.

I am a secular minded philosopher, I personally cant share faith with believers. I deal with empirical results, evidence, and reason. What does this all mean you might ask, where am I going with this. The birth of Western Medicine! It is based on science, on evidence, on real life reproducible results. Western medicine is based on hundreds of years of biomedical research, has gone through the test of the scientific method and empirical verification. It shows results, the results are constant in the objective world, they are not based on "personal experience."

Remember that science is also incomplete, as is medicine. Sometimes science can't explain certain questions, sometimes the knowledge available is limited at the moment, some hope is lost because of the dark spaces in knowledge, but miracles are real, in a metaphorical sense of course. Not because it is magic or gods supernatural influence, but simply because nature is unknown to us in its whole. Recoveries that are not explained by science are possible simply because science is incomplete and the human body works in ways which we are still yet to understand. They are real products of something simple, the natural world, nothing more nothing less than unknown products within the realm of scientific understanding.

Faith can make us ignorant, because similar to a delusion we become absolutely convinced that the belief we hold is true, regardless of evidence to the contrary. It suspends critical thinking in order to take iron age church teachings literally, teachings that were influenced by men who did not understand where the sun went at night. Faith leads us to arrive at really bizzare conclusions which can sometimes be very ugly and hurtful, sometimes even deadly. Let us not forget the murders that took place in the ancient Judaic world under the laws of the god of Abraham. The commandments of a jealous and angry god, and the story of the people who believed this god was literally giving them orders to kill, sacrilege entire villages and murder men, children, and animals, while raping the women, all based on faith, weather it be via personal revelation or revelation of prophet or church leader. I ask myself how many honest pagans, atheists, and non believers died at the sword of The Crusades, a religious sanctioned military campaign that was waged by Christian Europe in the early 1200's? As if God was some sort of omnipotent real estate broker, believers by the echo of faith literally believe that their god promised them this piece of dirt and rocks that we call the "Holy Land", and thus the crusades put the Roman Catholic Church against the Muslim in a holy war. The war for the "Holy Land" continues today.

The entire point behind this message is that Id like you to have another kind of faith as well, a secular humanist kind of faith. It is not a faith based on believing things that are supernatural, or that seem impossible, or that goes against science and logic. It is not faith in miracles, events so highly unlikely like oxygen molecule spontaneously turning to mono-atomic gold. I want you to instead have faith in people. Faith in your fellow brothers and sisters on this planet, that they know what they are doing, and with the knowledge that we have collectively gathered since the beginning of writing in the 4th millennium BC, we have a concrete foundation. While you may not know everything their is to know about Medicine, hundreds of thousands of doctors and scientists know a whole lot about it. The research has been done, every single day it is being done. Western Medicine is abound with knowledge. This is faith in something that exists. Faith that other people have done the research, have looked at the evidence, and actually know what works and what doesn't.

It is time we stop praying for miracles and hope our faith in God is strong enough to heal us and our loved ones, and replace it with faith in the medicine and results. After all when we are sick, we dont drive to church to seek advice from our bishop, we drive to the hospital to receive medical attention.

I'll have One Cup of Happiness Please.

If happiness is dependant on external circumstances, then we are like a leaf at the mercy of the wind, going through the emotional roller coaster of life with no control, going up and down and up and down.

But if we learn to understand that happiness and suffering is a matter of our internal reaction to the circumstances of the external world, we then might begin to regain some equilibrium over ourselves.

In laymen terms. Happiness is not something you get when something good happens to you in the world, happiness is simply a state of mind. "Perspective"

The cup is not half empty, rather it is half full. You see?

Calling Atheism a Religion is like Calling Bald a Hair Color

Atheism is literally "A" theism, the absence of theism. The absence of belief in God, but not necessarily the belief that their is no God. So atheism is not in fact the claim that their is no God. Atheism is not so much a claim in a sense.

Atheism asserts that the proof for the claim of God is of non substantial.

As in someone claiming that fairies exist in the Amazon. No one can prove they dont exist, rather the evidence for the existence of fairy's is measured and evaluated. That is what atheism is, their is room for agnostic credentials. No one can prove God does not exist.

But no one can prove Fairies, Leprechauns, Goblins, Unicorns, Satyr's, Cyclops, or Mermaid's, don't exist either.

If I asked you to prove to me that somewhere in the Galaxy of Andromeda their does not exist the greatest circus in the universe where the entrance is free and is run by aliens, you would not be able to prove it. you cannot prove that that circus does not exist, as silly as the existence of it may be.

Do you get my drift? You cannot prove your silly theory of God by telling people they cannot prove he does not exist. It is silliness.

So the next time you try to use the "can you prove God does not exist" argument in conversation with an atheist or sceptic, think twice and give yourself more intellectual credit than that silly nonsense.

Jesus Christ And The Suspension of "Natural Laws"

Is Jesus Christ really the son of God? My friends I'd like to offer you the following question regarding Jesus' miracles. Is it more likely to believe that the “laws of nature” (gravity, mortality, etc) were suspended or that a few men told a lie? I have never seen any laws of nature suspended, but I have seen many men tell many lies.

Have you ever seen anyone come back from the dead, walk on water, float in the air, convert one atomic element into another, or like Doctor Manhattan said, “Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold.”

Now have you ever seen a man tell a lie? How about politicians and governments? I ask you, was not the Roman Empire a government? Was Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, the architect of the bible, not a political leader? Was the “historical” birth of Jesus Christ not in the Roman Church? Keep in mind that NOTHING was written about Jesus until some 50 years after his death! No one who new him ever wrote a damn thing about him! You put the pieces together.

I ask you once again. Is it more likely to believe that every natural law that science has observed to be constant across the entire universe was suspended by a man or did the Roman empire create a very big lie? Think about it. If you can only get to God through Jesus, and you can only get to Jesus through the Roman Church, the Roman Empire thus inherits complete control of the God franchise.

My friends you have been sold the greatest lie ever told. If you want to believe that all the laws of physics and the universe as we observe them on a day to day basis, were somehow suspended by a Jewish carpenter two-thousand years ago, then you go on and by my guest. But I my friend choose to believe the simple answer. Men tell lies, especially when there is political power to gain....

Questions and critique are welcome....

What is Atheism

I want to take a moment to clearly define what it means to be an atheist. Having have had many conversations with people I have encountered one common misconception that many people have on the subject of atheism. For instance, many people like to say, well in the same way that a theist has faith that God exists, an atheist has faith that God does not exist, and is just as irrational and fundamental about his conclusion. This is incorrect, let me explain to you why.

If I were to say to you that fairy's and leprechauns exist somewhere deep in the Amazon, because it is I who am making the claim at hand it is I who must present the evidence to support my case. This is how all court cases are handled in the Judicial system. Pay close attention, here is where the correlation is emphasized. If I were to say to the non-believer, can you prove that fairy's and leprechauns do not exist? No, we cannot prove that fairy's and leprechauns do not exist somewhere in the Amazon. Their are many parts of the Rain Forest that are yet to be and uncovered and practically thousands of undiscovered species.

It is a flaw to defend a "claim" by searching for counter proof on the opposing end, specially when dealing with such an untestable subject. Rather what we do in such a situation is examine the evidence presented for belief in fairy's and leprechauns in the Amazon.

In the same way, that is what atheism does to God. Atheism is not the claim that God does not exist, but rather it attempts to analyse the evidence presented by those who claim that a God does in fact exist. It is irrelevant to ask an atheist for proof that god does not exist. Unfortunately many theist have used this counter argument relentlessly to cloak their lack of evidence and remarkably have gotten away with this flawed logic for centuries in the lay-man debate circle.

Thus it is the responsibility of the man in the position of making a claim to present the evidence to prove his or her claim to be true. In this sense it is as rational to be an atheist as it is to be a a-fairyist or a a-leprechaunist and requires no leap of faith whatsoever or fundamentalist thinking.

As an atheist, one is not required by definition to conclude that God does not exist, although it is not likely. What an atheist does is simply say that their seems to be no evidence to believe in a God and until such evidence is presented belief in such a "hypothesis" is unnecessary.