Keith Devens .com

I'm surprised that you would bother picking on Mormonism. What do you do when people present proof that the Bible isn't true?

Just so there is no confusion, I'm LDS.

Same here, actually. Science has been picking at just about everyone's religious beliefs for some time now. You think something like this is going to have any greater effect on Mormons or anyone else than it has in the past?

Wow, you're the last person in the world I'd expect to be laughing about how science has disproved a religious belief.

I would think an intelligent religious person would be respectful of other faiths. There's an irony whenever a notion posited that one faith represents the one true god while those of others (faiths and cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Aztecs, etc.) are false.

What do you do when people present proof that the Bible isn't true?

Well, N/A since I've never seen that happen. To all: there can be no contradiction between true religion and accurate science.

Science has been picking at just about everyone's religious beliefs for some time now. You think something like this is going to have any greater effect on Mormons or anyone else than it has in the past?

Actually, that's an excellent question. I think the fact that "science says" that we evolved from monkeys and that we were created ex nihilo, but not by God, has had a very large effect on the religious beliefs of our society. And, I didn't get to finish reading that article yet, but FWIW that scientific revelation certainly seems to have shaken Loayza's faith.

I would think an intelligent religious person would be respectful of other faiths.

I can respect a person of a different religious faith, but I don't know how one could or should respect a religious faith he believes is false.

There's an irony whenever a notion [is] posited that one faith represents the one true god while those of others... are false.

I don't see the irony. I suppose your unargued assumption is that they're all false?

I don't know how one could or should respect a religious faith he believes is false.

I think it's a valuable thing to respect the religion of others. It's a slippery slope to respect a person but reject their belief system (which is often synonymous with culture, ethicity, practices, values).

The irony is one side arguing for a position which is unprovable and based on faith, while rejecting/ridiculing another which is equally unprovable.

I suppose your unargued assumption is that they're all false?

I doubt that any religion is true. You profess yours is true and all others are false. Does that express it accurately?

I think it's a valuable thing to respect the religion of others.

Tell me what it means to "respect" a religion you think is false or nonsense? Also does this requirement of respect apply to all religions? Even those that require unwilling human sacrifice, murder of those of other religions, devil worship?

It's a slippery slope to respect a person but reject their belief system (which is often synonymous with culture, ethicity, practices, values).

I don't see how that's a slippery slope.

The irony is one side arguing for a position which is unprovable and based on faith, while rejecting/ridiculing another which is equally unprovable.

Tell me what it is about a religious position that makes it unprovable. Also, consider that if a religion is contradictory in some way, doesn't that make it false and worthy of rejection?

Also, I think Christianity and it's associated worldview are provable in the strongest sense possible... that if you reject it you reject the very possibility of proof. (Similarly to how Aristotle argued for the necessity of logic -- that if you reject locic you're already assuming it.)

Also note that at the foundation of all of our worldviews is a layer of faith. Those who don't hold to a religion with a deity still have a worldview foundationally based on faith.

I doubt that any religion is true. You profess yours is true and all others are false. Does that express it accurately?

Yes.

Tell me what it means to "respect" a religion you think is false or nonsense?

One ought to grant the same respect toward other religions that you would want others to grant your own. You don't need my help to figure this one out.

Also does this requirement of respect apply to all religions?

There are no requirements; you're free to be act as you please so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Even those that require unwilling human sacrifice, murder of those of other religions, devil worship?

As you might guess, religions that break the law, harm/denigrate their followers or those outside their group are not acceptable by society.

Tell me what it is about a religious position that makes it unprovable.

More specifically I am talking about the existence of god and whether or not this god mandates a specific religion. Given what we know today, this is not scientifically provable. If it were provable, it would no longer require faith.

Christianity and it's associated worldview are provable in the strongest sense possible... that if you reject it you reject the very possibility of proof.

Not to sound disrespectful, Keith, but this is rubbish. A no-win debate between a cartesian and a humean thinker, both talking past one another.

Those who don't hold to a religion with a deity still have a worldview foundationally based on faith.

I agree, although here I would swap the word "faith" for "superstition".

Modern Jews and Native Americans have common ancestors. This is established via the Q-P36 lineage which is acknowledged to be pre-Columbian.

Let it go,,"Live and Let Live" and I'm NOT Mormon

What would Jesus' DNA be like?

For a reasonably smart person you have been very well-indoctrinated. Of course, we all must choose what we believe, and even if others choose for us, it should only delay our ultimate enlightenment.

For a reasonably smart person you have been very well-indoctrinated. Of course, we all must choose what we believe, and even if others choose for us, it should only delay our ultimate enlightenment.

Who are you referring to? What ultimate enlightenment are you talking about? And how did you manage to contradict yourself within one sentence?

"Also note that at the foundation of all of our worldviews is a layer of faith. Those who don't hold to a religion with a deity still have a worldview foundationally based on faith."

Does a worldview that says to understand the world you have to look at the world, sound like some abstract metaphysics? And since it seems obvious on the intuitive level, if some other view challenges it, the burden of proof is on the challenger. No good argument would imply an unjustified position. Which I guess is the definition of faith.

Does a worldview that says to understand the world you have to look at the world, sound like some abstract metaphysics?

But underlying that are all kinds of assumptions about the nature of reality (yes, that's metaphysics) that you have to hold based on faith, such as the inductive principle.