USU SHAFT Comments

Comment on LDS leader look-a-likes by TEMUULEN

TEMUULEN — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:37:52 +0000

YES I AFREE

Comment on Aaron Eckhart and other famous ex-Mormons by Sam

Sam — Fri, 18 May 2012 05:45:34 +0000

Daren,

Amen to you. I care but then i don’t about some of the history stuff. Yes, logically, the church makes sense. There are things I do not understand and perhaps will never know. However, part of life is living with contentment and trust that all will work out. Part of the reason I go to church is because my wife and kids enjoy going. How can I deny them that opportunity if they want to go. Where my family goes, I follow to be with them…that is part of being a grown up. Do I learn and feel the spirit when I go, yes. My relationship with God is personal and I go to worship him not to satisfy some requirement for being LDS.

Comment on History of Humanism: The Other Garden of Eden by James

James — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:46:35 +0000

Shout out to my homeboy Epicurus. Decent post. Theists need to understand that agnostics and atheists are not morally empty, but that there are plenty of other places to find sound ethical teachings. Oh and theists also greatly benefit from studying humanism.
That being said, I often wish that secular humanists would emphasize and discuss their morals and ethics more, rather than almost exclusively arguing against or critiquing harms of religion, but maybe that’s just because I like ethics.

Comment on There Are No Atheists in Fox-holes by Huenemann

Huenemann — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:11:30 +0000

Great post. Your story reminds me of another one I heard from a former student. He had been raised LDS and served a mission, but shortly after that (mid-20s) became an atheist. He graduated and joined the Peace Corps and served in Mongolia, and had time occasionally to serve as a guide for tourists through the mountains (he already had extensive back country experience). One day he was caught in a life-threatening avalanche – he snapped both legs, was found just in time, and was dug out from the snow. It was grim, but he welcomed the experience, because he had always wondered whether he’d hang on to his atheism in the most desperate of circumstances. He certainly had the chance to offer up a prayer while he was in pain waiting to be dug out, or during the 24-hour bumpy jeep ride to a local clinic, or the longer travel to a bigger hospital. But no, it had no appeal to him. He knew he accepted life on its own terms – no special favors, no special guarantees.

Comment on Priest wants “faggots” burned at the stake by Mickey30981

Mickey30981 — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:25:09 +0000

No! You’re venom should burn! I’m not defending molesting priests or anyone who enabled them. But I am defending the 99% or so priests who are heroic, loving, saintly men. They do not deserve your disgusting comments , and are far more outraged at all the guilty priests and bishops than even you are. Please consider a little more charity and thought in your blanket condemnations thrown around!

Comment on Priest wants “faggots” burned at the stake by Mickey30981

Mickey30981 — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:21 +0000

That the APA does not support reparative therapy does not prove it cannot be effective. The APA has its own political correctness agenda not based on research. The therapy has been proven to be effective although like any therapy it is not always effective for everyone. For one, you have to want to change. The bigger issue in the APAs opposition , i believe, is accepting that there is any “disorder” regarding homosexuality. It wasn’t that long ago that the APA removed homosexuality from its official list of disorders- the DSM.

Comment on There Are No Atheists in Fox-holes by Soren.

Soren. — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:46:46 +0000

Thanks for sharing and well said!

Comment on There Are No Atheists in Fox-holes by Zachary M

Zachary M — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:49:32 +0000

Great write up, Nathan. This myth (‘no Atheists [or select other secular title] in fox holes) is an annoying, false cliche that Christopher Hitchens in particular loved to disprove, considering 1) he placed himself directly in hot areas during many military engagements, and 2) he had noted many times that there were other atheists, both enlistees and officers, who fought honorably. Sometimes other soldiers (religious and non-religious alike) fully supported them, other times they dealt with a President who told them it was impossible for an atheist to be a patriotic American (George H.W. Bush).

Since the belief still exists–though I’d argue the *widespread* belief in it has waned significantly after 11 years of continuous warfare, in conflicts where religious extremism is a particularly strong theme–it’s a favor anytime we can get veterans who were at least secularists up through their time of service to dispel it.

Comment on What kind of atheist/theist are you? by ICallShennanigans

ICallShennanigans — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:39:12 +0000

I really hate how Agnosticism is so disrespected! Either you are an Atheist or an Agnostic… You cannot be both… I understand that fool Dawkins said Agnosticism Was fence sitting and intellectual cowardice, but that is nonsense… He was an atheist that knew it is a lie to say “there is no God”.
That is ludicrous!
Agnostics are not on the fence, unless they add something to the title (like theist or atheist)
If you are Agnostic you believe religious people are F.O.S. or gullible, and Atheist is a religion to us. (as an agnostic of course we acknowledge there is a possibility we are wrong, i.e. “maybe Moses really did exist, and it is possible his racist God did talk to him on everybody else’s behalf, heck the dog whisperer is real, maybe one of the religion creators was actually the God whisperer…”)
The existence of God CANNOT be proven or disproven… That is not an opinion, that is a fact, if you disagree with that you are not Agnostic, plain and simple!
I hate the fact so many people try to lump us with atheist… Atheist are believers, You cannot be Agnostic if you are a believer!

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Wendell

Wendell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:09:02 +0000

If I write on a piece of paper, “John Wayne is really better than anyone realized he was.” Then I put that piece of paper in my pocket and no one ever sees it, somehow I have harmed John Wayne?

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Wendell

Wendell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:35:12 +0000

Mormonism does not deny the “Christianity” of other denominations. Christianity is a broad term that predates denominations and therefore cannot be limited by the term.

It seems a contradiction to say that Mormonism is exclusive while arguing that it unethically seeks to apply it’s exclusivism in a universalist way. How can Mormonism be exclusive and Universalist at the same time?

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Wendell

Wendell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:28:59 +0000

Potter fails to make his point because he assumes he knows the process of Evangelizing in a place he calls Spirit Prison. He makes a lot of assumptions about what a person in the after life may or may not be able to commit.

He might as well have argued the following point.

Resolved. Proxy sacrifice for sin is neither a rational or an ethical solution to the problem of sin.

Jesus did what he did for all, even knowing in advance that many would not accept his sacrifice or change their lives.

All proxy baptism does is offer a choice, the same thing God did when he created the world. Mormons never claim to offer anything more than a choice. Offering a choice in someone’s name hardly harms a departed individual.

Comment on Is there a link between atheism and veganism? by hrrglbrrgl

hrrglbrrgl — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:20:31 +0000

I don’t understand how any self-respecting atheist can say that their conclusions about the universe in which we live is a lack of a belief in something.

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by the narrator

the narrator — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:04:03 +0000

Ryan, haha. That was awesome.

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Ryan T. Roos

Ryan T. Roos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:36:16 +0000

And if https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508370165 is indeed you, I’ll match our undergraduate students doing Mormon Studies at USU against those at BYU right now any day of the week. I’d also mention our graduate students, but as you no longer have a graduate department interested in doing Mormon studies, I won’t pile on. You’re welcome.

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Ryan T. Roos

Ryan T. Roos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:29:33 +0000

Really, Nelson? You trash and entire institution and its students (LDS and non) because one atheist blog has USU in the title? And you feel that’s a fair and thoughtful contribution? Your prestigious alma mater no doubt thanks you for not name dropping.

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by dadsprimalscream

dadsprimalscream — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:09:40 +0000

Well, Potter certainly won the competition of who could better speak clearly into a microphone. Ostler was difficult to hear even at the highest volume level. But did he really compare the LDS Church to the Matrix?

I don’t think arguing that people shouldn’t be offended was effective at all. It’s obviously in the news as an issue because people clearly ARE offended. Telling someone that they are merely choosing to be offended is well, arrogant and dismissive – the very thing he was trying to argue against…IMHO

I’m guessing that whatever side you were on entering the debate you walked away on the same side. I don’t think either side was persuasive. I thought Potter’s arguments were more sound, but then I started in his camp so…

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Nelson Chung

Nelson Chung — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:18:30 +0000

USU, what an intellectual powerhouse.

Comment on Baptisms for the dead: A debate by Seth Starnes

Seth Starnes — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:28:11 +0000

This was a great debate. There is a lot here that i would like to talk with you about Jon, from a judging standpoint. There was great points on both sides. Too much to talk about in a post. Im excited to see your in depth analysis later on. I will have to make sure i catch it. I will say i tend to think that Mr. Ostler was more aggressive in his pursuit against the aff then Dennis Potter was in defending. Which sways me more. Trying to be objective despite my Mormon background is hard but i like to think im capable of it. Ill post more on your analysis and well see if we are thinking along the same lines.

Comment on What kind of atheist/theist are you? by JimWae

JimWae — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:52:46 +0000

so “does not claiming proof exists” – not being an explicit claim – cannot define agnosticism