Pascals Wager From A Non-Believer.

[elguanteloko]

Why keep trying... the reason... at least my reason is... life isn't worth living without an answer.

Then, by definition, the lives of Atheists are in fact worth living since we have an answer to the question. Namely, the answer is, "God doesn't exist".

I'm not sure if you'd agree with me on that (you probably wouldn't), but that is the reason I believe... to make life worth living =).

You can do that but all I need to reject that is that I actually do NOT need the belief that God exists to make my life worth it for me.

As for why I don't pray to other Gods, it is because I have already found one with whom I am fully comfortable.

...so, that's it? Not because its a correct belief but because you are comfortable? ....all right... I guess...

Why do you need a religion, you ask? To make things worthwhile. All of everything you do will be dust, if you think otherwise. To think otherwise, means you are a dispensable piece in a puzzle that just moves on, with no care whatsoever. That is a purposeless life, and above all things, I have a sense of purpose. To live in such a world would be pointless to me; there would be no point to live.

What is the point of spending time today with your family if tomorrow the moment will be gone?

Edited September 17, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Mere assertion is not a subtantive arguement.

Edited September 17, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Stargazer]

. *also tried to put a rep point on elguanteloko's post, but had reached my limit, sigh

Did it for you.

One of my missionary companions told me about his mother, who was a very active and faithful member of the church, served in every calling she was asked to serve in, and was temple recommend worthy, although he knew she did not have a testimony that the church was true, which fact she did not hide, though she didn't exactly advertise it. On the other hand, one of her sisters was quite inactive had a very strong testimony of the church, and would stand up for the church at any opportunity and bear witness of it. From one point of view, both are possibly hypocritical.

But from another point of view, and the correct one, in my opinion, is that his mother was exericising faith to the extent of the gift of testimony which God had given her, in the hope and trust that if God existed and the church were true, that she was living up to it as best she could. As has been mentioned, Alma 32. And his aunt, though she has a testimony, she has little actual faith. Since it is faith that justifies us, my companion's mother was justified; his aunt was not.

Given the amount of good that full activity in the church accomplishes, I should like to think that at the end of my days, should I discover as my lights go out and there is nothing at the end of it, I would in the final milliseconds of my existence nod my head in satisfaction that I had at least been of some use to somebody besides myself. But as the guy in the video said, this won't happen, because I am not wrong to believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Mere assertion is not a subtantive arguement.

What in the world are you talking about, TSS?

[blackstrap]

There are those on this board whose god is "NOT GOD" .They worship at the feet (metaphorically speaking) of "NOT GOD" and spend chunks of their valuable time striving to convince others of the correctness of their position.To what purpose?Mankind seems to have evolved the need to worship something,be that rocks or trees,or the sun,or humanness or something outside of themselves.Silly us. If we only knew the truth of our useless beliefs,we could make the world a better place. But why would we?Oh yes,so that in a few more millions of years and some technical improvements WE humans can become "gods" over some primitive life forms on another planet .And the eternal circle of life continues.

[Eldwynn]

There are those on this board whose god is "NOT GOD" .They worship at the feet (metaphorically speaking) of "NOT GOD" and spend chunks of their valuable time striving to convince others of the correctness of their position.To what purpose?Mankind seems to have evolved the need to worship something,be that rocks or trees,or the sun,or humanness or something outside of themselves.Silly us. If we only knew the truth of our useless beliefs,we could make the world a better place. But why would we?Oh yes,so that in a few more millions of years and some technical improvements WE humans can become "gods" over some primitive life forms on another planet .And the eternal circle of life continues.

When the men are made of straw..... Do you worship the fact that Zeus and the Easter bunny and ever other subject of the humann imagination does Not exist?

Neitherdo we.

[TAO]

Then, by definition, the lives of Atheists are in fact worth living since we have an answer to the question. Namely, the answer is, "God doesn't exist".

No, my friend. As I said, I digress from Atheists - there is a supreme God, and our lives are worth something. I do not think that many put as much weight on purpose as I do, which is why I don't think purpose bothers most atheists; it is not quite as important to some of them as it is to me.

You can do that but all I need to reject that is that I actually do NOT need the belief that God exists to make my life worth it for me.

*Shrugs* To each his own. My sense of purpose is different than yours.

...so, that's it? Not because its a correct belief but because you are comfortable? ....all right... I guess...

Who said anything about it not being a correct belief? Nah, it is because I feel it is correct... that is what is meant by I am 'comfortable' with it.

What is the point of spending time today with your family if tomorrow the moment will be gone?

There isn't any, my friend, but momentary satisfaction. Momentary satisfaction feels rather empty to me, though, that it does.

As I said, I wouldn't see any reason to do much, if it was all to turn to dust, for all permanence to disappear in the wind =/.

The Eternities means something great, and important to me =). They make life worthwhile =D. They make going through trials a little thing compared to what will happen later. It gives me strength to know 'It is all worth it.'

I know you will disagree, but that is what I believe, that I do =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited September 17, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

No, my friend. As I said, I digress from Atheists - there is a supreme God, and our lives are worth something. I do not think that many put as much weight on purpose as I do, which is why I don't think purpose bothers most atheists; it is not quite as important to some of them as it is to me.

Atheist do NOT disagree with you that our lives are worth and a lot. What I do disagree with you is that accepting that God exists somehow gives "value" to our lives. That doesn't follow at all. Our lives may be valuable to God but that wouldn't mean our lives are worth anything.

Value exists because something values something. As long as you value your life you will have worth. Of all the qualities in a computer, worth isn't one of them because value isn't an intrinsic characteristic of objects but the value we take those objects to have. Do you not see the difference?

*Shrugs* To each his own. My sense of purpose is different than yours.

Sure but I think I can show you your reasoning is flawed and you are being inconsistent.

Who said anything about it not being a correct belief? Nah, it is because I feel it is correct... that is what is meant by I am 'comfortable' with it.

You said you believed because it made your life worth living, not because it was true.

There isn't any, my friend, but momentary satisfaction. Momentary satisfaction feels rather empty to me, though, that it does.

You are missing the point. ANY event (including being "comfortable") is a being NOW. The question is, why do something "now" when the moment will pass away? Why have a purpose and make yourself feel comfortable when in just some moments you will go back to daily life and forget about that comfortableness? IOW, "purpose is purposeless". Why would you want to make yourself comfortable when you won't be comfortable when, let's say, you suffer?

As I said, I wouldn't see any reason to do much, if it was all to turn to dust, for all permanence to disappear in the wind =/.

And once again you are missing the point. That things will not last is NOT an excuse to not fully enjoy them since the MOMENT will pass away forever regardless of whether or not you life forever. This statement you made makes ANY and ALL events we could enjoy as having "no reason to be enjoyed". You are not being consistent here.

[TAO]

Atheist do NOT disagree with you that our lives are worth and a lot.

Nah, what you disagree with me is in how they are worth. What you see of as worth, I see as worthless. That is the problem you see. You believe thinks that will decay can be worth it, but I do not. For me, something must be much more long lasting.

What I do disagree with you is that accepting that God exists somehow gives "value" to our lives. That doesn't follow at all. Our lives may be valuable to God but that wouldn't mean our lives are worth anything.

Value exists because something values something. As long as you value your life you will have worth.

Unfortunately, I do not always value my life, as much as I do purpose, or, a reason for doing something. Sometimes one overcomes the other, or vise-versa. Will to live is a powerful thing, but it isn't powerful if it is more of a hassle to live then it is not to. This is the problem, my friend... because life is not always worth living... sometimes... life stinks. The only reason to live when life stinks, is because you look to a better time in the future.

Of all the qualities in a computer, worth isn't one of them because value isn't an intrinsic characteristic of objects but the value we take those objects to have. Do you not see the difference?

'Worth' and 'Value' are different in the brain then they are in real life. When we choose a path, we compare the positive and negative consequences of each, as determined by the lens we are viewing it with, and then pick the path that is 'better' overall. Unfortunately, for some, the negative consequences in life are so great, they lose the will to live. Those people usually end up themselves. Simply because, like I said earlier, life can stink. However, if we have something to hope for... some greater reason to live... something... worthwhile... then, life doesn't stink so much, and we can bear through our trials. This is why God is important; because life becomes of great worth; to live becomes of great worth. Because with God, we know that life will get better. Without him, we do not.

Sure but I think I can show you your reasoning is flawed and you are being inconsistent.

I don't think so, my friend. You see... my sense of purpose is probably the most deep thing I have. Perhaps on an equal level with will to live. It is nearly impossible to break, because it isn't founded on anything; you can't rip out something underneath it, because I know it instinctively. It is hard to explain... but, to me, it simply is.

You said you believed because it made your life worth living, not because it was true.

I don't remember what I said. What I meant, in any case, was the reason I tried to believe was because it made my life worth living. Why I believe, is because, when I tried with all my heart, I received a witness, which I trust. That is what I mean by going past the boundaries. Before this, I didn't think I could believe in something I didn't know was true physically. But I tried... to the point where I forsook all the rest, and a new light dawned for me. I discovered, that I didn't care if I could prove it physically; my personal witness was powerful enough for me to base my reasoning on.

You are missing the point. ANY event (including being "comfortable") is a being NOW. The question is, why do something "now" when the moment will pass away? Why have a purpose and make yourself feel comfortable when in just some moments you will go back to daily life and forget about that comfortableness? IOW, "purpose is purposeless". Why would you want to make yourself comfortable when you won't be comfortable when, let's say, you suffer?

No, my friend. It is not a now. You see, the difference is, I could be comfortable for eternity, whereas, in a world without God, I could only be comfortable till death. In a world without God, I am limited, and fall to the dust, like everything else. In a world with God, there is a reason to find a place where you are comfortable, there is a reason to find the truth; because it can continue forever.

No, my friend, this is a permanent, peaceful, comfortableness. I can overcome all the odds I wish to, if I so choose to. That is what is meant by it. It can continue... forever.

And once again you are missing the point. That things will not last is NOT an excuse to not fully enjoy them since the MOMENT will pass away forever regardless of whether or not you life forever. This statement you made makes ANY and ALL events we could enjoy as having "no reason to be enjoyed". You are not being consistent here.

This is a false definition, my friend. You do not know that things will end, you assert that, but it is an incorrect assertion, considering that you do not know such. You may use it to justify your own beliefs, but I do not believe in it. I believe in a God, I believe in an eternal world. And I believe in justice and mercy, and a life worth living. I reject your definition, of my own free will. You may believe things will end, but I don't. Because things that end in dust, things with no sense of permanence, or purpose, or reason, are just dust in the wind; it is not worth living a life like that, to me.

That is what I believe. I am sorry if you do not like what I believe, or if you disagree with it with all your heart. But this is what I believe, with all my heart, as well.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[elguanteloko]

TAO:

Yeah, we are definitely not communicating. Here's a clearer version of what I was trying to argue:

Let's say life has worth because it will last forever.

Under your idea, a given event within life must last forever in order for it to be worthwhile... but no event other than life itself (under your view) lasts forever and, therefore, no event within life is worth living. Therefore, no happy event within life is worth living since no happy moment lasts forever. However, life is made up of events (which aren't worth living) and, therefore, the whole content of life isn't worth living. Then, you still have to explain how a life full of events that don't last forever (and are not worth to live) can make up a life that is worth to live (because it lasts forever).

Clearer now?

Edited September 18, 2011 by elguanteloko

[TAO]

TAO:

Yeah, we are definitely not communicating. Here's a clearer version of what I was trying to argue:

Let's say life is has worth because it will last forever.

Under your idea, a given event within life must last forever in order for it to be worthwhile... but no event other than life itself (under your view) lasts forever and, therefore, no event within life is worth living. Therefore, no happy event within life is worth living since no happy moment lasts forever. However, life is made up of events (which aren't worth living) and, therefore, the whole content of life isn't worth living. Then, you still have to explain how a life full of events that don't last forever (and are not worth to live) can make up a life that is worth to live (because it lasts forever).

Clearer now?

No, my friend, that is not quite it. The reason an event is worthwhile is not because it lasts forever. The only thing I can state is that for an event to be worthwhile, it ultimately has to last forever. This refers to the goals of life, and not the means of course. You might take your family out to dinner, and that doesn't need to last forever because it is the means, not the goal. The goal, is an eternal family, and that, must last forever, that it must. In other words, the things you strive for, if any, must last forever. The things you progress towards must not have an end.

In other words, your argument tries to apply something that I apply to goals, to means... and that doesn't quite work out, because they aren't what you are living life for. What you are living life for, is what needs to last forever, for life to be worth it.

You are also incorrect - I think there are many more things other than life that last forever; I named one of them, family. There is also other things which last forever: knowledge, justice, and happiness. They all must last forever. And they are all goals of life, and not means. They are all what we progress for, and they all last forever.

In other words, the happy moments must not last forever, but the happiness itself must ultimately, by some point in time, last forever. Ultimately being the key word.

The events you have listed, are means, and not the ends, or the goals, of life, my friend. They don't apply to the definition. =P

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO

[Hughes]

Forgive me for not taking your word on it I guess if he is right, no one will ever know, which is the (tragically) funny thing about it all. Some people devote their entire lives and large financial resources, and if it turns out that existence just ENDS...

I guess that's what frustrates me about religion the most. It is mainly used as a way to encourage the poor that even if life isn't fair NOW, it will be later in heaven. I don't think that's true at all, and it makes me mad that the rich have used (what to me are) lies in order to make people okay with the inherent inequality thinking that they will be rewarded in some life after.

First, Pascals wager doesn't apply to the Mormon view of things, since they believe that even non-believers are going to the lowest heaven (Telestial).

Second, religion isn't started or supported by the rich. Jesus wasn't wealthy, and he died for what he believed, as did all his disciples, save one.

Third, as a former atheist, the difference between having faith, and understanding concepts is that one is an experiential knowledge and one is an intellectual knowledge. A person can tell you, until they're blue in the face, what it's like to swim in water, but until you actually do it yourself, you won't ever know what it actually feels like.

[TAO]

*stuff*

I ran out of plus points.. and I like this post. I'm sorry. =/

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

You are asserting there is no God.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

You are asserting there is no God.

I don't think I did here. I may have said I don't believe in God but not that there is no God.

But what if I did?

[elguanteloko]

The reason an event is worthwhile is not because it lasts forever.

OK, so an event doesn't have to last forever to be worthwhile.

The only thing I can state is that for an event to be worthwhile, it ultimately has to last forever.

OK, so now it does have to last forever.

Are you trying on purpose to illustrate to the MADB forums what a contradiction is? If you are, thank you.... I guess.

TAO, I don't consider it presumptuous to say that you haven't taken the time to understand what I've been saying. Existence is made of events one after another. Once you have the "another" then the previous has passed and it's now gone. Since every single moment will pass away, why should we strive for any happiness when an event of happiness will pass away (even if it is followed by another event of happiness or of eternal family or of Heaven)?

Read it carefully this time, please.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Mormons do not believe nonbelievers will inherit the lowest of the kingdoms.

[TAO]

OK, so an event doesn't have to last forever to be worthwhile.

OK, so now it does have to last forever.

No, that isn't what I said. I said that lasting forever isn't the full reason that it is worthwhile. In other words, things that last forever are not guaranteed to be worthwhile. But all things that are worthwhile goals last forever.

It is the same logic as are all squares rectangles. Yes. But are all rectangles squares? No.

Are you trying on purpose to illustrate to the MADB forums what a contradiction is? If you are, thank you.... I guess.

Nah, you misread my statement, and meaning.

TAO, I don't consider it presumptuous to say that you haven't taken the time to understand what I've been saying. Existence is made of events one after another. Once you have the "another" then the previous has passed and it's now gone. Since every single moment will pass away, why should we strive for any happiness when an event of happiness will pass away (even if it is followed by another event of happiness or of eternal family or of Heaven)?

I don't think you've taken the time to consider what I am saying seriously.

It is true, existence is made of many trivial events after others, and those aren't all that important, or worth living for. They are the means to a great goal. But existence also has constructs in it. In programming, we would define that as the objects (constructs), versus the methods (events). The objects are much more permanent and are manipulated via methods. It is these constructs that can be worth living for, not the events that come and go like passing wind. It's the family itself you strive for, and not the family events. The family events are the methods, that lead to a good object. The events, that lead to a good construct, the family itself

Again, you seem to think that things don't have any sense of permanence, and I already told you I rejected that. I see permanent things all the time; permanent because people choose them to be. I see life in a different way than you do, elguanteloko. If you want to debate, you have to be more willing to understand my form of thinking, which is different than the norm.

[elguanteloko]

Nah, you misread my statement, and meaning.

I didn't misread anything. You said "p" and two sentences later you say "not-p".

It is true, existence is made of many trivial events after others, and those aren't all that important, or worth living for. They are the means to a great goal. But existence also has constructs in it. In programming, we would define that as the objects (constructs), versus the methods (events). The objects are much more permanent and are manipulated via methods. It is these constructs that can be worth living for, not the events that come and go like passing wind. It's the family itself you strive for, and not the family events. The family events are the methods, that lead to a good object. The events, that lead to a good construct, the family itself

Again, you seem to think that things don't have any sense of permanence, and I already told you I rejected that. I see permanent things all the time; permanent because people choose them to be. I see life in a different way than you do, elguanteloko. If you want to debate, you have to be more willing to understand my form of thinking, which is different than the norm.

Oh, I know you are "special", don't worry. I got that the first 15 times you told me that.

I don't even think you understood my argument at all. You keep thinking of "goals" and "means" when what I'm saying speaks of either goals or means. "Goals" and "means" occur in events and it is about those events that I'm talking about. As long as there is time (and I can't conceive change if there isn't time) your principle that "unless something lasts forever it will be worthwhile" will be nonsense. Not just wrong but nonsensical. I'm sorry I didn't make myself understood better.

[TAO]

I didn't misread anything. You said "p" and two sentences later you say "not-p".

Nah. You misinterpreted what my first sentence meant. I meant that 'the reason why they are not worthwhile is not solely because they are not permanent'. In other words 'there is more needed to make them worthwhile then simply permanence' or 'not all permanent things are worthwhile'. The second sentence was meant to be a modifier, and a clarifier of the first. Perhaps I should have said it differently.

Oh, I know you are "special", don't worry. I got that the first 15 times you told me that.

Well then you really shouldn't use 'status quo' things on me. =P I am not going to accept a theory if it is accepted by mainstream psychologists, philosophers, or pretty much anybody, really. I generally want to think it through myself first. In other words... I do not accept appeal to authority or popularity... until I give a good amount of thought to it.

I don't even think you understood my argument at all. You keep thinking of "goals" and "means" when what I'm saying speaks of either goals or means. "Goals" and "means" occur in events and it is about those events that I'm talking about. As long as there is time (and I can't conceive change if there isn't time) your principle that "unless something lasts forever it will be worthwhile" will be nonsense. Not just wrong but nonsensical. I'm sorry I didn't make myself understood better.

Perhaps then, the problem we have is that we have definitions for the terms then.

For me, a goal is an ideal, a lifestyle, and not an event. You 'reach' the goal, but then you have the job of maintaining it throughout eternity. This is permanence. Family... you spend all this time preparing for it.... and then work hard to keep it together, so it never ends. That is worthwhile. That is permanence. It is an ideal that is strived for, and not an event intended to be there one moment, and not the next.

Also, to me, change does not effect the permanence, because the ideal is still there, still permanent. This is why you could take your family to the movies, or take them to dinner, and to me, it is still a permanent family, no matter which option you choose =).

Lol... yeah... I'm pretty sure we are talking about two different concepts now XD.

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

For me, a goal is an ideal, a lifestyle, and not an event.

Good grief! I'm not saying "a goal" is "an event". The object of a goal is an event. In "My goal is to have a family" the object of the goal is "you having a family" which is an event. If I say "a dog" I don't mean the concept of "a dog" but a four-legged animal. I mean, this is basic stuff, TAO, you can figure these things out for yourself. Why aren't you?

You 'reach' the goal, but then you have the job of maintaining it throughout eternity. This is permanence. Family... you spend all this time preparing for it.... and then work hard to keep it together, so it never ends. That is worthwhile. That is permanence. It is an ideal that is strived for, and not an event intended to be there one moment, and not the next.

Also, to me, change does not effect the permanence, because the ideal is still there, still permanent. This is why you could take your family to the movies, or take them to dinner, and to me, it is still a permanent family, no matter which option you choose =).

Lol... yeah... I'm pretty sure we are talking about two different concepts now XD.

Yeah, you're still not getting it. Whatever.

Edited September 18, 2011 by elguanteloko

[erichard]

...

I guess that's what frustrates me about religion the most. It is mainly used as a way to encourage the poor that even if life isn't fair NOW, it will be later in heaven. I don't think that's true at all, and it makes me mad that the rich have used (what to me are) lies in order to make people okay with the inherent inequality thinking that they will be rewarded in some life after.

Well, scriptural Mormonism is very Zion oriented. The D&C talks more about Zion than about the church. Zion is not predicted for the next life, it is coming in this life. And Zion is to be economically just. One good reason to accept Mormonism.

There is a real difference between what is known as "blind faith" and true faith. We all live continually "on faith".

Do you remember even one thing that happened to you in the first two years of your life? Probably not. But on faith you accept that you did live those two years. It may be "common knowledge" based on "universal experience" that we lived as infants even though we no longer remember it. But it still takes some faith to accept it.

Does anyone remember living in the pre-mortal life as spirits? Not anyone I know. But on faith some of us accept that we did live in that existence. The evidence is the witness of the Spirit when reading scripture.

We live moment by moment. Five minutes from now is as unseen as a million years from now. From experience we can usually predict a lot about five minutes from now, but it still takes faith to accept that we will arrive there in five minutes.

Death seems to end all consciousness, but the fact that we have consciousness and that it is likely not just an accident, is a strong evidence that our consciousness could continue after death. Whatever brought it about once could bring it about again.

Faith starts, from my experience, by accepting what "cannot be honestly denied". I cannot prove the Book of Mormon, but in honesty-- so far-- I cannot deny it could be what it claims to be. I cannot prove the pre-mortal life as spirits happened, but in honesty I cannot deny it could have happened.

When a person allows skepticism and other negative thinking to limit what could be true, it greatly complicates them finding new truths.

Acting on what "cannot be honestly denied" I have had spiritual witnesses that have been significantly powerful to convince me to continue trusting in things I cannot directly prove.

Richard

[Hughes]

I ran out of plus points.. and I like this post. I'm sorry. =/

Thanks, you're too nice.

Hughes:

Mormons do not believe nonbelievers will inherit the lowest of the kingdoms.

Very sorry, tell me where this is incorrect:

Telestial kingdom

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the telestial kingdom is the lowest of what are believed to be three heavens or heavenly kingdoms. It is said by Latter-day Saints to correspond to the "glory of the stars" mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the King James Version translation of 1 Corinthians 15:41. There are no known uses of the word prior to Joseph Smith's prophecies.

[edit]Inhabitants

According to the LDS scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76, those who will inhabit the telestial kingdom include those "who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus."^[22] It also includes "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie."^[23] Because of their refusal to accept Jesus as their Savior, these individuals will remain in Spirit prison^[24] for 1000 years during the millennialreign of Christ.^[25] After the 1000 years, the individuals will be resurrected and receive an immortal physical body and be assigned to the telestial kingdom.^[26]

Joseph Smith taught that individuals in the telestial kingdom will be servants of God, but "where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end";^[27] however, they will receive the ministration of the Holy Ghost and beings from the terrestrial kingdom.^[28] Despite these limitations, in LDS theology being resident in the telestial kingdom is not an unpleasant experience: "the glory of the telestial ... surpasses all understanding".^[29]

Joseph Smith also taught that just as there are different degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom (D&C 131:1-4), there are different degrees of glory within the telestial kingdom. He stated that "as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in the telestial world."^[30] Each person's glory will vary depending on their works while on the earth.^[31]

Smith and Rigdon stated "we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore".^[32] One Latter-day Saint commentator has suggested that by implication this means that "most of the adult people who have lived from the day of Adam to the present time will go to the telestial kingdom."^[33]

[edit]

Source

[HeatherAnn]

...So, since I doubt god would want me to "pretend" to be LDS when I have no reason to believe, isn't a safer bet to be true to myself (in case this really is the only life I get), and if I die and end up in the afterlife, I can, rather frankly, tell god that if he wanted me to believe, he should have communicated a bit better.

Eldwynn,

Yesterday, my son flat out asked, "Do you believe in Santa, Mom?"

I said, "I believe in the Spirit of Santa." And isn't it fun to believe?

You DO have reasons to believe in many things which have no scientific evidence.

We ALL (Atheists & Theists alike) can't help but think illusionally... & the greatest illusion is to believe we are not illusional!

Please, for the love of God, ... don't define God by Theist terms & then deny that definition. It's offensive & limiting to you on many levels.

Who has a monopoly on truth? Nobody! Yet, even if our beliefs are way off from "reality" - they still have influence. As we think, so are we & so does life seem.

Think of God as that which inspires us each, in our own personal way....& the subconscious/intuitive more expanded awareness.

God is love... motivation toward what we think is best (except God is the highest of all possibilities)... which we find through both intellect & intuition.

Denying this highest best, limits your potential.

God is like the dark matter/energy that permeates 95% of the universe... Yet, your experience of God is within you... (However you want to define that: emotions based on thoughts, "the kingdom of God within," subconscious).

Not only do you have reasons to believe, much of your reasons are completely illogical, like the rest of us. (Just consider some of your strange dreams.)

We must learn to harmonize the subconsocious with the conscious... to get the most of LIFE NOW.

So, if you want God to communicate a bit more... look within at your own psychology ("study of the soul").

The Christian God & some warped scriptures are based on tradition & rooted in a desire to maintain political power over people.

I agree with the guy in the clip that God (our subconscious etc.) is loving & understanding... & would never condemn us for h*** for any reason.

We make our own heaven or h***. Haven't you realized that yet? By what you think, you can feel on top of the world, or really bummed out.. then those emotions influence behavior, which again influences thoughts.

Yes, it's great to be inquisitive & seek truth... yet there's a part of you who doesn't give a poopadillia about truth & just wants to laugh, dance, ENJOY.

If you were really intent on seeking truth... you'd be exploring the truths of poverty & war throughout the world instead of going to Hawaii on vacation.

We need breaks from reality. We need some kind of hope - who cares if it's illusional - that's what movies, music & religion are for.

Faith does tend to prevent skeptimism, yet it also gives motivation, passion & a sense of meaning to much of life.

Still, if we get off balance, in either truth seeking - or - joy at all costs... life won't be as meaninful as it otherwise could be.

As TheSometimesSaint mentioned,

If the Atheists are correct and it is just this life and then the Abyss. None of us will know any differently anyway.

One of the best Mormon scriptures is "Men are that they might have joy!"

I also like, "I am come that they might have life & that they might have it more abundantly." Not after we die, but NOW.

Edited September 18, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[TAO]

Good grief! I'm not saying "a goal" is "an event". The object of a goal is an event. In "My goal is to have a family" the object of the goal is "you having a family" which is an event. If I say "a dog" I don't mean the concept of "a dog" but a four-legged animal. I mean, this is basic stuff, TAO, you can figure these things out for yourself. Why aren't you?

No, this is where I disagree. I think the object of an event is a goal. You think it is the other way around. To me, goals are the reason we do things, they are our high standards. The events are less important. And nah, just having a family wouldn't be an event as you are describing it because then you try to maintain that family. Combining those two things forms the goal 'to have and keep a family', which is what is strived for, and is eternal.

I think we are talking past each other, in any case.

Yeah, you're still not getting it. Whatever.

Neither of us is getting the other =P.

Oh well, I guess. It should do for now =).

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO