Meadowchik Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 On Thursday, March 09, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Atheist Mormon said: Why follow another Human being who claims to be an emissary of God, without offering a shred of evidence.....Starting from Jesus, Apostle Paul to Joseph Smith......What is the fascination when we know these guys did not deliver what they promised......My incredulity about most you goes like this; I know you are well educated, well reasoned about the reality...But when it comes to this faith thing you just unclad most of your reasonings and stick this fantastic story where never was able to deliver any part of it's story as reality...... It is so obvious that all these stories are mythical and made up; there was never a Virgin Birth or a "First Vision" as Joseph narrated.....The real Story came from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein....How long are you willing to pursue this dream of "Afterlife"? Some of us were preconditioned since birth to believe in Joseph Smith and the church. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 23 hours ago, Snoogins said: Thank you for your response. Well we'll have to disagree on faith being evidence even if it is only to the individual. But there are many things that can be discussed as evidence, for example the Bible, which has obvious problems and disproving it destroys any Christian religion. I find it difficult that anyone can argue the Bible to be the word of God. This also plays into religion being man made. If the text can be found to be inaccurate or untrue then clearly the religion would have to be inaccurate and hence, man made. Faith is defined as evidence of the unseen. Any time we believe there is evidence for something we cannot prove and have not witnessed with our personal senses that is faith. 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: What if your God wanted you to kill me? After all it is possible since you are prone to hear the voice of God, whereas I am this infidel, incapable of hearing inner voices God wants you dead and you are wondering what I would do in that scenario?! If God wants you dead, it doesn't really matter what I do...you are hosed! Edited March 18, 2017 by pogi 1 Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 23 hours ago, pogi said: We don't toss out the entire institution of science when 1 thing which was said to be true is later discovered to be false. Religion doesn't claim perfection. Religion is not God. It is ran by fallible humans and is therefore a fallible institution, just like science. You're inadvertently proving my point that religion is not necessary. If the doctrine is fallible and run by fallible humans then why listen to them if you can't rely on the information? The only way we find out when something is wrong is when someone proves something wrong or science proves it wrong. It's not like God is stepping in when the mistake happens and is like, "Wait a minute". The difference with science is they'll admit right away when they're wrong on something, religion won't admit anything until they have no other choice. Also there are things science can confirm 100%, not so with religion. Plus you have a supposed "prophet" as the leader of your church who should be able to correct anything wrong with the Bible, BoM, and provide answers to any questions concerning Joseph Smith. Take something like gay marriage, which the church has paid money to campaign against. I think if the LDS church wants to get involved in forcing their beliefs outside of their church they owe a better explanation than, "Take our word for it, God says it's wrong". Religion hurts innocent people. People should require more of their church. They owe you more than what they're giving you. In the end it comes back to the same thing, why not through out religion which is unreliable, and just have a personal relationship with God? Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 5 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Faith is defined as evidence of the unseen. Any time we believe there is evidence for something we cannot prove and have not witnessed with our personal senses that is faith. You're making up your own definition. Faith means, belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Any dictionary will give you a similar definition. Whatever you or anyone else claims to experience can't be verified that it's coming from a godly source, your own mind or you're delusional. Even you can't determine if what you experience isn't in your own head. That's why it's not evidence and shouldn't be claimed as such, even by you. Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted March 18, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Snoogins said: You're making up your own definition. Faith means, belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Any dictionary will give you a similar definition. Whatever you or anyone else claims to experience can't be verified that it's coming from a godly source, your own mind or you're delusional. Even you can't determine if what you experience isn't in your own head. That's why it's not evidence and shouldn't be claimed as such, even by you. He's not making up his own definition, he's using a biblical one. Hebrews 11:1- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 5 Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: He's not making up his own definition, he's using a biblical one. Hebrews 11:1- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." But the Bible is a fictional book so the definition is useless. It's like me quoting a Spiderman comic to prove Spiderman exists. Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted March 18, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Snoogins said: But the Bible is a fictional book so the definition is useless. It's like me quoting a Spiderman comic to prove Spiderman exists. Bible is a book about faith in Christ and his gospel, so if the topic is faith in Christ or his gospel, it's a very useful book. Only personal bias would cause anyone, including an unbeliever, to claim otherwise. Edited March 18, 2017 by bluebell 5 Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: Bible is a book about faith in Christ and his gospel, so if the topic is faith in Christ or his gospel, it's a very useful book. Only personal bias would cause anyone, including an unbeliever, to claim otherwise. It's not personal bias. You would have to be able to prove the Bible is nonfiction in order to use Bible passages in a rational debate. Which I think any believer is going to have a hard time doing seeing as how our morality today is better than what is in the Bible and every scientific claim the Bible makes has either been destroyed or there's zero evidence for. Not to mention that the errors in the Bible are so many and so bad the only logical conclusion is that it is fiction. Link to comment
pogi Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Snoogins said: You're inadvertently proving my point that religion is not necessary. If the doctrine is fallible and run by fallible humans then why listen to them if you can't rely on the information? The only way we find out when something is wrong is when someone proves something wrong or science proves it wrong. It's not like God is stepping in when the mistake happens and is like, "Wait a minute". The difference with science is they'll admit right away when they're wrong on something, religion won't admit anything until they have no other choice. Also there are things science can confirm 100%, not so with religion. Plus you have a supposed "prophet" as the leader of your church who should be able to correct anything wrong with the Bible, BoM, and provide answers to any questions concerning Joseph Smith. Take something like gay marriage, which the church has paid money to campaign against. I think if the LDS church wants to get involved in forcing their beliefs outside of their church they owe a better explanation than, "Take our word for it, God says it's wrong". Religion hurts innocent people. People should require more of their church. They owe you more than what they're giving you. In the end it comes back to the same thing, why not through out religion which is unreliable, and just have a personal relationship with God? Just accept that I find great value in my religion and that it gives great meaning, purpose, peace and happiness to my life. To say that my religion is not needed seems rather egocentric. You are conflating imperfect with “unreliable". No, no, no, my religion consistently works for me in ways that science simply cannot. It is VERY reliable! You may not see the hand of God in its evolution, but I do. I don't think that you have fully thought this through. You say to ditch religion all together but to keep my personal relationship with God? Snoogins, that is impossible! My personal relationship with God exists because of religion. If I was to ditch religion all together, along with ALL of its teachings and scriptures, then what foundation would I have for a belief in God in the first place? Without the words of the prophets, I wouldn’t even know what or how to worship. I would have to revoke all of my previous knowledge, and invalidate all of my previous spiritual experiences which were based on all religious teachings and practice. If I toss out religion, then I have to toss out my God, my friend, and my Father as I know and relate with Him. What you are suggesting would be akin to claiming that science is not necessary, while at the same time practicing its principles and utilizing all of the knowledge that it has provided. It would be incredibly spurious and ungrateful of you. That is what we call, “kidding oneself”. I marvel at the advances in medicine, engineering, technology, etc. which improves quality of life. But at what long-term costs? I sometimes wonder if we are better off with or without science. I look at the world before the age of science and all of the scientific advancements in the last century+, and I almost cry to think of how we have raped our planet with science. In seeking further advancements, we have unwittingly set in play the early demise of our planet with overpopulation (which science has exacerbated exponentially), exhaustion of natural resources, and pollution. If not that, then it will be weapons of mass destruction made possible by scientific "advancement". Whenever I walk outside on an inversion day in Utah, I feel science filling my lungs with a thick cloud of death, and gaze West over the toxic led filled soils of West Jordan to Heriman, and I smile for all of the glorious scientific advancements. Science is now trying to solve the problem that it unwittingly created in the first place - global warming (if you believe in that). Science in the hands of humans, seems to be far more dangerous than religion in the hands of humans. Can science save us before it kills us? I only mention all of this because you seem to be of the opinion that we should toss out anything and everything that may hurt innocent people. With science in the hands of greedy, short-sighted humans, we are all doomed. P.S. Sorry, but science NEVER claims 100% certainty as you claim. Edited March 19, 2017 by pogi 1 Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 8:56 PM, Atheist Mormon said: Why follow another Human being who claims to be an emissary of God, without offering a shred of evidence.....Starting from Jesus, Apostle Paul to Joseph Smith......What is the fascination when we know these guys did not deliver what they promised......My incredulity about most you goes like this; I know you are well educated, well reasoned about the reality...But when it comes to this faith thing you just unclad most of your reasonings and stick this fantastic story where never was able to deliver any part of it's story as reality...... It is so obvious that all these stories are mythical and made up; there was never a Virgin Birth or a "First Vision" as Joseph narrated.....The real Story came from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein....How long are you willing to pursue this dream of "Afterlife"? No shred of evidence? The Holy Ghost is fairly convincing evidence to me. Definitive proof. I know God lives and loves me because I've felt His love. I heard His voice. I know the atonement is real because ive experimented on it. I've used it in my life. My whole life is evidence that Jesus lives and Joseph was a prophet. You may have seen nothing but why do you suppose that just because you haven't no one else has? It's kind of hard to deny God is real when you have a relationship with Him. 2 Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 9:04 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: Who exactly is this 'we' you reference here? I am a Latter-day Saint specifically because the whole experience delivers perfectly on its promises -- reliably, consistently and predictably. It's fairly interesting that Jesus made it clear how we could know for ourselves. Do His will and ask Him. Mormons especially are trained from our youth on how we can obtain our own witness. And yet we are treated as if there is no way to know for ourselves by skeptics who refuse to actually do the experiment for themselves Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 10:32 PM, carbon dioxide said: Lets look at this as sort of business investment. Lets say there is no afterlife and all these stories are false. What do I lose by believing them? Sure I might lose a little money in tithing and time in going to church and other related things but none of that will bother me when I die and find out there is no afterlife. I will not exist to care. Nor will you exist to spike the ball in front of me and say "I told you so." But if there is an afterlife then perhaps my investment of money (tith and offerings) and time (attending church meetings ect) could come with a HUGE payoff. Your position if right has no upside at death. Marginal upside before death. If you are wrong you have no upside if there is an afterlife and only downside. My position only as marginal downside before death and a potential big windfall if correct. I have seen enough evidences that convince me I am on the right path. Perhaps it would not convince you but that is ok. As long as its sufficient to convince me, that is all that is required. If the real story is told by Darwin or Einstein, that is truly a sad, miserable story in the end. We are just animals and our existence ends at death. Nothing in our lives really matters in the end anyway so why care about anything. Personally I don't see how the story told by Darwin or Einstein is incompatible with the gospel Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/9/2017 at 9:34 AM, The Nehor said: I think the secret there is to commune with God now and find out what he deems acceptable. That is more than many are willing to do for answers Link to comment
sheilauk Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Snoogins said: You're inadvertently proving my point that religion is not necessary. If the doctrine is fallible and run by fallible humans then why listen to them if you can't rely on the information? The only way we find out when something is wrong is when someone proves something wrong or science proves it wrong. It's not like God is stepping in when the mistake happens and is like, "Wait a minute". The difference with science is they'll admit right away when they're wrong on something, religion won't admit anything until they have no other choice. Also there are things science can confirm 100%, not so with religion. Plus you have a supposed "prophet" as the leader of your church who should be able to correct anything wrong with the Bible, BoM, and provide answers to any questions concerning Joseph Smith. Science (scientists?) admit right away when they are wrong? has the doctor who lied about vaccines causing autism admitted he's wrong? how much debate is there still about climate change? I think you'll find, if you are honest, that some people admit when things are wrong or change and some don't. also, there is consensus on a number of things but I don't think science has confirmed anything 100%. prophets like scientists are not infallible and can misunderstand nor do they or scientists know everything. Quote Take something like gay marriage, which the church has paid money to campaign against. I think if the LDS church wants to get involved in forcing their beliefs outside of their church they owe a better explanation than, "Take our word for it, God says it's wrong". Religion hurts innocent people. People should require more of their church. They owe you more than what they're giving you. In the end it comes back to the same thing, why not through out religion which is unreliable, and just have a personal relationship with God? I think you'll find its people who hurt people, unless you think science hurt all those killed by guns, poison gases, radiation and nuclear bombs to name a few things. Church, like anything I voluntarily belong to owes me nothing. and if politicians of parties I oppose, lobbyists for things I oppose, charities and other organisations can get involved in forcing their beliefs on me, then the church can campaign for its beliefs. The church forces nothing on anyone by campaigning. The government forces things by reacting for or against any particular stance/campaign/lobbying. Or rather, it's force when I disagree, it's right when it does what I want. Added: I have spent time outside of an organised religion. personally, I find it much easier to maintain my personal relationship with God within the structure of a religion. religion and God are intertwined, whatever problems fallible, imperfect people cause. Edited March 19, 2017 by sheilauk 4 Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 10 hours ago, pogi said: Just accept that I find great value in my religion and that it gives great meaning, purpose, peace and happiness to my life. To say that my religion is not needed seems rather egocentric. You are conflating imperfect with “unreliable". No, no, no, my religion consistently works for me in ways that science simply cannot. It is VERY reliable! You may not see the hand of God in its evolution, but I do. I don't think that you have fully thought this through. You say to ditch religion all together but to keep my personal relationship with God? Snoogins, that is impossible! My personal relationship with God exists because of religion. If I was to ditch religion all together, along with ALL of its teachings and scriptures, then what foundation would I have for a belief in God in the first place? Without the words of the prophets, I wouldn’t even know what or how to worship. I would have to revoke all of my previous knowledge, and invalidate all of my previous spiritual experiences which were based on all religious teachings and practice. If I toss out religion, then I have to toss out my God, my friend, and my Father as I know and relate with Him. What you are suggesting would be akin to claiming that science is not necessary, while at the same time practicing its principles and utilizing all of the knowledge that it has provided. It would be incredibly spurious and ungrateful of you. That is what we call, “kidding oneself”. I marvel at the advances in medicine, engineering, technology, etc. which improves quality of life. But at what long-term costs? I sometimes wonder if we are better off with or without science. I look at the world before the age of science and all of the scientific advancements in the last century+, and I almost cry to think of how we have raped our planet with science. In seeking further advancements, we have unwittingly set in play the early demise of our planet with overpopulation (which science has exacerbated exponentially), exhaustion of natural resources, and pollution. If not that, then it will be weapons of mass destruction made possible by scientific "advancement". Whenever I walk outside on an inversion day in Utah, I feel science filling my lungs with a thick cloud of death, and gaze West over the toxic led filled soils of West Jordan to Heriman, and I smile for all of the glorious scientific advancements. Science is now trying to solve the problem that it unwittingly created in the first place - global warming (if you believe in that). Science in the hands of humans, seems to be far more dangerous than religion in the hands of humans. Can science save us before it kills us? I only mention all of this because you seem to be of the opinion that we should toss out anything and everything that may hurt innocent people. With science in the hands of greedy, short-sighted humans, we are all doomed. P.S. Sorry, but science NEVER claims 100% certainty as you claim. First off, to anyone I respond to, please note that I'm not attacking you no matter how much it may seem like I am. I promise you that is not my intent. I'm not trying to make fun of you or make you feel stupid, but I will tell you if I think you're being irrational or whatever. I do mean what I say and I'm just explaining my reasoning. Imagine I'm speaking calmly because if we were talking face to face I would be. I understand where you're coming from and I do understand your side more than you realize. I know how hard it is or would be to give up something you've believed your whole life, I was once in that position. I still think people should care about what's true even if that goes against everything you've known your whole life. If someone was raised hating a particular race of people I would hope one day, even if it were 50 or 60 years into their life, that they would realize they were wrong. Truth is the only way we make any progress whether it's religion, science, politics, etc. I would say that's an inaccurate assumption that I'm someone who thinks we should throw out anything just because it hurts people. It's also not the only reason I think religion needs to go. It needs to go because it affects me, it affects everyone and we can prove it wrong. There's no reason to hurt people over a false belief. It's not just gay marriage, people get divorced over someone leaving a religion, people disown their kids and family members over it, amongst a bunch of other things. So yes, it's important whether or not it's true and we shouldn't keep it around if it's false. I'm sure you're sick of me bringing up the Bible but Christianity doesn't exist without it. We could easily compare it to a textbook used in any school because it is used as a textbook. If a school textbook contained the same amount of errors we would be throwing it out. Why don't we throw out the Bible? Why do we show respect for something that is clearly fictional? The reason we don't is because Christianity would fall, the BoM wouldn't be true, and we're taught that it is taboo or wrong to criticize religion. This is what I don't understand about religious people; they are the ones who claim to be about truth and honesty but to put it gently, I think religious people have to ignore a lot. If I was being straightforward, I would say they have to lie to themselves to accept the Bible. You say doctrine is part of how you feel you came to know God but if that doctrine is false that should raise a lot of red flags and make you wonder what that means about your relationship with God? I'm not trying to tick you off, but it would be a logical question and one I think you would care about. If science wasn't necessary I wouldn't be practicing it's principles or use it's knowledge, but science isn't the same thing as religion. Science is not a belief system, it doesn't have leaders. It's all about scrutiny unlike religion. Sure it can be used in the wrong way and yes I'm in total agreement about how scary things like WMD's could be in the wrong hands. That's why truth is so important. It's important that world leaders understand we shouldn't have them or use them, that they're educated and make rational decisions. Well if you want to get technical, scientists by the rules of their profession, have to leave room for any slight possibility. So they'll say 99.9% sure, but I would say there are plenty of things we can say with 100% certainty, like the world is round, 2 + 2 = 4, but if you're not comfortable with that I think we can at least agree science can prove things to a point we can accept them as fact. Not in all cases of course. Sure science can't answer a question like, what is the purpose of life? But neither can religion. Religion can give you an answer but in reality it's just a theory. Scientists don't claim anything as fact until they can prove it over and over and over through experimentation. Most importantly, no scientist will make claims about something that no one could possibly know. Let me close off by saying that I don't think religious people are bad people. Some of my favorite people in this world are LDS. I do think some religions and/or denominations care more about money than helping people. I do think the LDS church and it's followers have good intentions for the most part, but there are exceptions. Even with that being said, we should all care if it's true and it still matters whether or not it's true and there's more than enough evidence to come to that conclusion that it's not. I think I've been as rational as I can be and if you want to leave it at "we'll just have disagree" I'm fine with that. I do understand how personal it can be and I'm not out to hurt anyone's feelings. Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 9 hours ago, sheilauk said: Science (scientists?) admit right away when they are wrong? has the doctor who lied about vaccines causing autism admitted he's wrong? how much debate is there still about climate change? I think you'll find, if you are honest, that some people admit when things are wrong or change and some don't. also, there is consensus on a number of things but I don't think science has confirmed anything 100%. prophets like scientists are not infallible and can misunderstand nor do they or scientists know everything. Well you took a general thing I said and made it into more, but that's my fault not yours. I could've been more clear on my meaning. Of course scientists can make errors and there is the occasional bad apple. I'm not claiming perfection among scientists but I think we can agree that for the vast majority, probably a high 90 percentile of scientists are honest about how they approach their related fields. But science and scientists are not one in the same even though they are talked about that way and I make that mistake often. One could make a case for science being if not a perfect method of finding truth, the closest thing to perfect there is. I think the only debate about global warming is pretty much among politicians and between citizens. I think the scientific community are pretty much in agreement. 9 hours ago, sheilauk said: I think you'll find its people who hurt people, unless you think science hurt all those killed by guns, poison gases, radiation and nuclear bombs to name a few things. Church, like anything I voluntarily belong to owes me nothing. and if politicians of parties I oppose, lobbyists for things I oppose, charities and other organisations can get involved in forcing their beliefs on me, then the church can campaign for its beliefs. The church forces nothing on anyone by campaigning. The government forces things by reacting for or against any particular stance/campaign/lobbying. Or rather, it's force when I disagree, it's right when it does what I want. Added: I have spent time outside of an organised religion. personally, I find it much easier to maintain my personal relationship with God within the structure of a religion. religion and God are intertwined, whatever problems fallible, imperfect people cause. This second part I disagree on a lot of things you've said. People do hurt people and people use science to hurt people, but science isn't responsible for hurting people. Scientists can be used to hurt people and have been used but it's not the fault of science. Religion is different though and I'll use an example from the other post I made. If a marriage ends because of one person leaving the religion that is religions fault if the religion isn't true of course. A marriage ends all over a false belief that we can prove wrong with rational discussion and common sense. As far as it being voluntary to belong to the church I would argue on most cases. I'd say it's voluntary if you're a convert in your adult life. I don't know your personal story of how you entered the religion, but most people are indoctrinated from birth into their respective religion which I wouldn't call that voluntary. You could make someone believe anything if you conditioned them from birth and is why I am a strongly against it. It takes the choice away from them. Also if you pay tithing, which you can argue is voluntary. Technically they can't take it out of your pocket but I was a member I know how it is. I've heard talks where they would tell you if it was between your rent and paying tithing to pay your tithing, which is terrible in my opinion and I'm sure it can differ to some degree between churches. So yes, I think they owe members more than what they offer and things aren't as voluntary as they might appear. Politics and religion are different on so many levels. Just because politicians don't necessarily represent the people like they're supposed to doesn't mean the rational thing to say is religion can do whatever it wants. The rational response is to hold them both accountable. Truth is just as important in politics as it is in any other area of life. Unfortunately our government doesn't work the way it should where they come to make laws based on rational discussion and what's best for everyone instead of themselves. But another distinct difference is that we have a say in who our elected officials are. I suppose you might have to give me an example of how you think a charity or organization is forcing beliefs on you. I don't see that. It's like politics, there's a distinct difference between them doing something you don't like or agree with and forcing beliefs. Like if you were against gay marriage, and the government legalizes gay marriage like they have. You might not agree, but it's not forcing a belief on you. They're not effecting your rights in any way and they're not even asking you to agree. They're recognizing a gay person's rights if anything and I'm not claiming this is your position, it's just an example. I would agree that religion is intertwined with God but God isn't intertwined with religion. God can still exist without it, not the same for religion. But as will remain my position... we should care about what's true and the evidence is more than overwhelming against religion. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/17/2017 at 10:23 AM, Snoogins said: The point is that if you believe no matter what then what is the defense against it not being true? If you believe, then no defense is needed against "it not being true" becausr no one has demonstrated that religion, in my case, the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not true. Religion, as taught by Christ has never hurt anyone. It is the improper use of religion that harms. Using religion as a means of power, etc. rather than a guide for service. Glenn 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Snoogins said: It needs to go because it affects me, it affects everyone and we can prove it wrong. Yes, religion does affect people. But you seem to be incapable of appreciating the feelings, truths, meaning, and experiences of religious (and non-religious) people and how it positively affects them (aka egocentric). Might I point out that you are in the extreme minority in saying that religion affects everyone negatively when you consider the religiosity of mankind. To say that religion "needs to go" is incredibly naive, imperseptive, and insensitive of you. You can "prove" all religion wrong? CFR for scientific consensus on that one. Quote I understand where you're coming from and I do understand your side more than you realize. I know how hard it is or would be to give up something you've believed your whole life, I was once in that position. I still think people should care about what's true even if that goes against everything you've known your whole life. I agree with you. People should care about what is true, even if it goes against everything they've known their whole life. 5 hours ago, Snoogins said: This is what I don't understand about religious people; they are the ones who claim to be about truth and honesty but to put it gently, I think religious people have to ignore a lot. If I was being straightforward, I would say they have to lie to themselves to accept the Bible. 90% of the human population is "lying to themselves"? Oh, THAT is the problem! Has it ever occurred to you that your truth is not my truth, and that your perspective is not my perspective? I don't see things the same way you do Snoogins. I doubt that we can even agree on what truth even is. You are trying to make everything black and white, but it is never that easy. I know you claim to not be attacking me, but when you come to me and tell me that my religion "needs to go", that I am "irrational", and better yet that I am "just lying to myself"...how am I supposed to take that? It doesn't help me to visualize you saying it "calmly", sorry! I know that you are well intentioned, but man you need a new approach. That is not how you win friends and influence people. 5 hours ago, Snoogins said: You say doctrine is part of how you feel you came to know God but if that doctrine is false that should raise a lot of red flags and make you wonder what that means about your relationship with God? I'm not trying to tick you off, but it would be a logical question and one I think you would care about. You would be right if the doctrine was false. But so far, it seems to be very consistently working for me at this point and science cannot definitively prove it wrong. Edited March 19, 2017 by pogi 2 Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Snoogins: You overstate the science. SEE Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Snoogins: I'm a long time convert from when I was 20 years old. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Snoogins said: First off, to anyone I respond to, please note that I'm not attacking you no matter how much it may seem like I am. I promise you that is not my intent. I'm not trying to make fun of you or make you feel stupid, but I will tell you if I think you're being irrational or whatever. I do mean what I say and I'm just explaining my reasoning. Imagine I'm speaking calmly because if we were talking face to face I would be. I understand where you're coming from and I do understand your side more than you realize. I know how hard it is or would be to give up something you've believed your whole life, I was once in that position. I still think people should care about what's true even if that goes against everything you've known your whole life. If someone was raised hating a particular race of people I would hope one day, even if it were 50 or 60 years into their life, that they would realize they were wrong. Truth is the only way we make any progress whether it's religion, science, politics, etc. I would say that's an inaccurate assumption that I'm someone who thinks we should throw out anything just because it hurts people. It's also not the only reason I think religion needs to go. It needs to go because it affects me, it affects everyone and we can prove it wrong. There's no reason to hurt people over a false belief. It's not just gay marriage, people get divorced over someone leaving a religion, people disown their kids and family members over it, amongst a bunch of other things. So yes, it's important whether or not it's true and we shouldn't keep it around if it's false. I'm sure you're sick of me bringing up the Bible but Christianity doesn't exist without it. We could easily compare it to a textbook used in any school because it is used as a textbook. If a school textbook contained the same amount of errors we would be throwing it out. Why don't we throw out the Bible? Why do we show respect for something that is clearly fictional? The reason we don't is because Christianity would fall, the BoM wouldn't be true, and we're taught that it is taboo or wrong to criticize religion. This is what I don't understand about religious people; they are the ones who claim to be about truth and honesty but to put it gently, I think religious people have to ignore a lot. If I was being straightforward, I would say they have to lie to themselves to accept the Bible. You say doctrine is part of how you feel you came to know God but if that doctrine is false that should raise a lot of red flags and make you wonder what that means about your relationship with God? I'm not trying to tick you off, but it would be a logical question and one I think you would care about. If science wasn't necessary I wouldn't be practicing it's principles or use it's knowledge, but science isn't the same thing as religion. Science is not a belief system, it doesn't have leaders. It's all about scrutiny unlike religion. Sure it can be used in the wrong way and yes I'm in total agreement about how scary things like WMD's could be in the wrong hands. That's why truth is so important. It's important that world leaders understand we shouldn't have them or use them, that they're educated and make rational decisions. Well if you want to get technical, scientists by the rules of their profession, have to leave room for any slight possibility. So they'll say 99.9% sure, but I would say there are plenty of things we can say with 100% certainty, like the world is round, 2 + 2 = 4, but if you're not comfortable with that I think we can at least agree science can prove things to a point we can accept them as fact. Not in all cases of course. Sure science can't answer a question like, what is the purpose of life? But neither can religion. Religion can give you an answer but in reality it's just a theory. Scientists don't claim anything as fact until they can prove it over and over and over through experimentation. Most importantly, no scientist will make claims about something that no one could possibly know. Let me close off by saying that I don't think religious people are bad people. Some of my favorite people in this world are LDS. I do think some religions and/or denominations care more about money than helping people. I do think the LDS church and it's followers have good intentions for the most part, but there are exceptions. Even with that being said, we should all care if it's true and it still matters whether or not it's true and there's more than enough evidence to come to that conclusion that it's not. I think I've been as rational as I can be and if you want to leave it at "we'll just have disagree" I'm fine with that. I do understand how personal it can be and I'm not out to hurt anyone's feelings. Did you seriously just pull out the local equivalent of the "I have lots of black friends" excuse for your terrible opinions? Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 7 hours ago, pogi said: Yes, religion does affect people. But you seem to be incapable of appreciating the feelings, truths, meaning, and experiences of religious (and non-religious) people and how it positively affects them (aka egocentric). Might I point out that you are in the extreme minority in saying that religion affects everyone negatively when you consider the religiosity of mankind. To say that religion "needs to go" is incredibly naive, imperseptive, and insensitive of you. I've never claimed that religion is only producing negative things and only hurting people. That would be a gross misrepresentation of what I've said. You're making a lot of assumptions about me based on very little information. I would say most religious people probably don't feel the negative parts but some do. It's the people outside of it that are affected the most and it doesn't need to be that way. Let me put it to you this way. If religion kept within the confines of its walls I wouldn't have any problem with it. You could believe in unicorns for all I care. I'll use gay marriage because it's an easy example. If the church wanted to, for lack of a better word, “police” homosexuality within their own religion I'm fine with that. Say members can't practice it and things to that extent it's fine. It's when religion extends beyond that and campaigns against basic human rights, or forcing their beliefs on others is where it's a problem for me. In other words, it shouldn't matter what 2 guys/girls outside of any religion want to do. But on the matter of it being true, we shouldn't be following if it's not true. No nice way of saying it, and I think there's more than enough evidence to make that a logical conclusion. 7 hours ago, pogi said: 90% of the human population is "lying to themselves"? Oh, THAT is the problem! Has it ever occurred to you that your truth is not my truth, and that your perspective is not my perspective? I don't see things the same way you do Snoogins. I doubt that we can even agree on what truth even is. You are trying to make everything black and white, but it is never that easy. Most of the world is religious, but 90% aren't all Christian. Even with the majority being religious it doesn't give religion more credibility. It might if they all believed in the same religion. It is because there are so many different religions that there's more of a reason to suggest none of them are true. Even if there where 1 true religion, there is less than a 1% chance you're in or were born into the right one. I think you're right that we won't agree on what truth is. While you can say I'm trying to make it B&W I would say you're trying to make it more complicated when it doesn't need to be. Complicated just makes it easier for you to hide behind it. You say we need to take personal experiences into account but regardless of what your experiences are the Bible still has to be true for Christianity to be true, for the BoM to be true. That is B&W no matter what. I think you would have to agree, even if not entirely, that you should be able to see the reasoning, and logic of why people say the Bible isn't true. I'm not discrediting your experiences or what you get out of it but the B&W parts still have to be true. 7 hours ago, pogi said: I know you claim to not be attacking me, but when you come to me and tell me that my religion "needs to go", that I am "irrational", and better yet that I am "just lying to myself"...how am I supposed to take that? It doesn't help me to visualize you saying it "calmly", sorry! I know that you are well intentioned, but man you need a new approach. That is not how you win friends and influence people. I'm going to say things that are going to offend you and others. I'm arguing an opposite opinion and sometimes it's going to offend no matter how sensitive I try and make it. There's no nice way of saying some of the things I need to say. I could just as easily be offended by some of your opinions, positions or presumptions of me, but for some reason we're taught that religion deserves more respect than a non-believers view. But I don't let it get to me. In the end, despite what you say about me I'm going off your arguments. I'll tell you when I agree and do my best to explain my side when I disagree. I'm not concerned with making friends but at the same time I'm not trying to hurt anyone. Am I going to be perfect in my approach, of course not, but don't let it upset you. This is one of the disadvantages of online debate because it takes the flow and nuances out of it and a lot of misunderstanding takes place. Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Snoogins: I'm a long time convert from when I was 20 years old. I watched your video and I didn't necessarily hear anything I disagree with. I don't think I'm overstating science. I've been talking about it a lot but I haven't used it to argue God or supernatural things. Only things that deal with or make scientific claims. I've mainly been discussing Bible truth, but science isn't the only method of debating the truthfulness of the Bible. There's historical problems, morality issues, logical/illogical problems, inconsistencies, contradictions whatever else I'm not thinking of at the moment. Did you convert by marriage, through missionaries, how did that come about if you don't mind answering? I'm not trying to trap you or anything, just genuinely curious. Link to comment
Snoogins Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Did you seriously just pull out the local equivalent of the "I have lots of black friends" excuse for your terrible opinions? Ooouuuchh, come on, you can come up with a better insult than that. Pretty reasonable seeing as how I've lived in Utah my whole life and was raised LDS. It's not really a equal comparison at all. Nice try with the Ad Hominem though. Link to comment
Recommended Posts