[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus (1). This point presupposes that god does not exist. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot presuppose this. You must keep the possibility open. In this point you point out that religion requests that you accept a false reality. But since we don't know the reality to be false, this point holds no water.

I make no claims about god. My comments and observations are about god advocates. It is possible to have the correct answer but to have obtained it dishonestly and it is possible to have an honest answer that is incorrect. There may be some supernatural religion in the universe that got it right. Who knows? Not I. My comments were about honesty.

(2). This is probably the strongest point. The basic principal here is the inconsistancy of religions, and the verification of the correct one. The point you make is that only one religion can be true, and there is no way to pick the right one. The mistake you make here is that the truth of religions is not mutually exclusive. Parts of religions may be true. Basic things like gods existance, an afterlife, right and wrong. These are very consistant themes.

That is not my point. My point is that they all for the most part claim to be completely correct and they claim that the other religions are wrong. They may say that the other religions have some things right but they will also say that for the magic to work one must have the completely correct incantation and only their religion has it. This is the equivalent of going to any doctor and having each doctor that you go to tell you that all the other doctors are not completely competent, some more than others and only that particular doctor is completely competent and could cure you. If you found that was the state of medicine you would wonder if they were all a bunch of quacks. Same goes for supernatural religion. At best one religion is being honest and the rest are being dishonest but most likely all of them are being dishonest.

Lets say I go into a classroom of 8 year olds and give a long, detailed lecture on the process of cellular respiration. Then lets say that you test them the next day to see what they retained and understood. Their explinations of the process would vary. None of them would be completely true. But a lot of the basic ideas would be the same. Most would probably understand that you put gluclose in and get ATP out (although some would get that wrong). Fewer would remember how many carbons in a glucose. Mabey only one child would remember that you get 32 net ATP from a glucose. Maybe another sudent argue that you actually get 34. They would both be right, you get 34 gross. The point here is that when truth is revealed by a higher intellegance, lower intellegances often get it wrong. Their stories contradict, and are sometimes blatently false. But it dosen't prove the underlying phenominon we are describing to be false. Some religions out there do not claim that only they are true. They fit into this model. Some religions claim that only they are right. Well obviously they got at least that one point wrong. Some religions (mine) claim that nearly all religions have truth, but only theirs has all the truth that has been revealed. All of them are an honest possibility within the model I propose above. You would not say that the 8 years olds were lying when they gave false facts. They are 8. They are not equiped to handle this stuff. It's understandible that thy make mistakes. In relation to god, we would be the same.

You are confusing honesty with being correct. You can get the correct answer honestly or dishonestly and you can come by the incorrect answer honestly or dishonestly. I make no claim that any of the religions are correct or incorrect. My claims are that they are all dishonest. If the student incorrectly measured 29 and thought that it should be 34 and they reported 34, then they are being dishonest. They may have what is considered to be the correct answer but they came by it dishonestly. They would be lying if they reported a different number than what they observed. Kinda like claiming that demons make the world go round when no one can show that the critters can do anything. That is dishonest. It could very well be the case that demons do make the world go round but until you can show it you can only state it as speculation, not the way things actually are.

(3) You bemoan a different standard for verifying truth. How do we verify truth? Our sences. Science only accepts 5 of those sences for the verivication of truth. Is a spiritual sence not possible? If you accept that this sence can exist, then it is possible to use this sence to verfy a proposition scientifically. Many religions challenge the worshiper to seek verification from this "sixth sence". Let me give you an excerpt from a book of mormon scripture: And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth• of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mormon 10:4 This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothisis if you allow a spiritual sence.

You have missed my point entirely. I don’t care if you use your senses or a Ouija board or tea leaves or whatever. If you claim that tea leaves proves your particular religion to be the “truth” and the same exact method also shows other religion to be true that you claim to be false then you are not being honest. The actual method is not at issue, although many of the methods of supernaturalists are severely cracked at best, it is their double standard that makes them dishonest. Their methods just make them stupid but that is another topic. It is funny that your quote illustrates this nicely. The sincere in the heart test works for any religion even the ones you know are wrong. Just ask their adherents. Yet for some strange reason in those cases you do not find the same test that convinced you of your religion convincing for other religions. Gee, could it be because you are dishonest?

(4) If you can verify a belief (see above) the "offer you can't refuse" can be verified, so there is no lie.

Really? Care to verify it for me. Kill yourself and come back and fill me in on heaven or hell.

(5) Just gripe that lots of things in lots of religions are false. I already alled for this.

You have missed my point entirely. This is not about "truth". It is about dishonesty. But then again I have repeated this so many times.

(6) Already addresed exclusivity (7) Non applicible.

**whoosh** right over your head. Why am I not surprised that a supernaturalist doesn't understand honesty.

Starboy