Nofear Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Its more about- if the church is right or wrong. I am siding with the church on this. So far, it doesnt appear the church is changing its position. I think the problem is that you exceed the position of the Church and claim it as the position of the Church. This is, in it's own way, a form of apostasy. Not that I'm calling you apostate (I don't think that), but the behavior is one that does and has lead some to apostatize. 2
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I think the problem is that you exceed the position of the Church and claim it as the position of the Church. This is, in it's own way, a form of apostasy. Not that I'm calling you apostate (I don't think that), but the behavior is one that does and has lead some to apostatize.Umm....wow, you are really stretching now.So, if someone follows the church teachings then they are on the road to apostacy. Okay then, never heard that one before.
Nofear Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Note that I suggested that you were exceeding the teachings of the Church as passing them off as being the Church's (and the Church's official position has been cited numerous times in this thread). That isn't "following". Hugh Nibley's Zeal Without Knowledge may be instructive. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 What Dawkins describes is the Transhumanist position on what a God would be if there is one. Mormons actually believe this, and Mormons actually qualify as atheists in the same sense Transhumanists do, because as Dawkins, we decry supernatural gods. We decry supernaturalism and superstition in all its forms. Joseph Smith was the most wonderful atheist the world has ever known, because we now have knowledge of the race of beings that we are a part of, that are precisely what Dawkins describes, and that the nonsense out there that is false is pure nonsense. We are theists in the sense that we know that the nonsense that is not Mormonism in the world is just that, and that we have the truth about what their mythological and superstitious understandings actually are. We are atheists in the same sense Transhumanists are. The difference between Mormons and Dawkins is that we have knowledge of what he describes, and we use theistic terminology to describe it. He only has a theory about what a real God would be. But we also know that the beings out there of the race from whence we sprang have authority over us, and we know that the one that we call Father, that to him we owe our worship and our loyalty. Atheists would possibly continue to reject that authority and that need of worship, even if they knew of their existence, and that is the difference between us and them. If you truly understood Dawkins, you would understand that his philosophy at its core is against supernatural Gods, and we are against that. His problem with Mormonism is his conflating the god of Mormonism with supernatural gods of other religions, including apostate Christianity. The God Delusion is an awesome book, because I can't help but agree with a lot of its core. I decry supernaturalism in all its forms, with Dawkins. So I guess what I am saying is we are actually atheist in some ways, and theists in other ways, and it actually depends on what words you use to describe what we believe. We agree with theists on some things, and atheists and Transhumanists on others. Atheism... The belief there is no God(s).Theism... The belief in one or more God(s).Agnosticism... The not believing either way. ALL Gods are by definition supernatural.
DragonLancer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Atheism... The belief there is no God(s).Theism... The belief in one or more God(s).Agnosticism... The not believing either way. ALL Gods are by definition supernatural. That's not true at all. But really, this is about semantics now. Edited March 16, 2015 by DragonLancer
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Dictionaries are wonderful things. Atheism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheismTheism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theismAgnosticism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic Supernatural... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
DragonLancer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Dictionaries are wonderful things. Atheism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheismTheism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theismAgnosticism... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic Supernatural... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural Nice try my friend. We are splitting hairs over definitions now, so basically we aren't really making progress. I think I see your point, but you are not using these words the same as I am. Edited March 16, 2015 by DragonLancer
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Nice try my friend. We are splitting hairs over definitions now, so basically we aren't really making progress. I think I see your point, but you are not using these words the same as I am. Idiosyncratic use of words doesn't help in communication. The Mulekites had definite problems communicating with the Nephites.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Note that I suggested that you were exceeding the teachings of the Church as passing them off as being the Church's (and the Church's official position has been cited numerous times in this thread). That isn't "following". Hugh Nibley's Zeal Without Knowledge may be instructive. The church official teachings- 1. Adam was the first man on the earth. There could have been no pre-adamites as they would have been classified as "man"(see 1909 Origin of man and reprinted in 2002 Ensign by the first presidency as official doctrine) 2. There was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve. (see Gospel Principles) 3. The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. This is the age of the earth since the fall till the end of the millennium. Because there was no death on the earth before the fall then none ofour earths life is older than the 6,000 years approximately. Those three points represent the official doctrine of the church.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 No! Only that the positing of any Supernatural being or force is not allowed in science. IE; If I as a scientist find a watch on the beach science can't say God put it there. Though as a LDS I certainly am free to believe that he did.If I found a watch on the beach science would say that it came from a person. The argument isnt about "who" put it there, its about if it is a design made by a person.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Idiosyncratic use of words doesn't help in communication. The Mulekites had definite problems communicating with the Nephites.Funny that we cant even discuss the main argument because somehow you think "design" is defined as "god".
Nofear Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I'll let others again debunk Rob Osborn's claims or otherwise link the many FAIR articles on the subject that do the same. I'll just quote Pres. J. Reuben Clark for the moment:Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling. (cited here) 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I'll let others again debunk Rob Osborn's claims or otherwise link the many FAIR articles on the subject that do the same. I'll just quote Pres. J. Reuben Clark for the moment:FAIR isnt the church. Its not my claims you are trying to debunk, its the church official doctrine you are trying to debunk.
DragonLancer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Idiosyncratic use of words doesn't help in communication. The Mulekites had definite problems communicating with the Nephites. There is nothing idiosyncratic the way I'm using them my friend. You are just insisting that your use of these descriptors is the only way, and then you quote me a dictionary source as if that helps your cause. They are perfectly descriptive of what I am getting at. You are insisting that someone cannot be an atheist in a sense if he rejects Zeus or the Christian Trinitarian Glob/Blob. You are insisting that the only kind of atheist is a person that rejects all beings out there. That doesn't work for Transhumanists who have a concept of beings out there that are aliens, which includes Dawkins. That includes us also as Mormons, but excludes Trinitarian Christians. Mormons believe that not only God is an alien, but that our spirits are not native to this planet, so we are also aliens. You insist that supernatural means anything that requires faith. I reject that. I say supernatural is anything that is obviously mythical and no substance or no chance in reality. The Mormon God is part of a known species. He is not supernatural. So. I say that I am using the words just fine, and I disagree with you. Just because you use the words differently and try to clobber me with the dictionary doesn't mean there is anything idiosyncratic about how I speak. Edited March 16, 2015 by DragonLancer 1
DragonLancer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) If I found a watch on the beach science would say that it came from a person. The argument isnt about "who" put it there, its about if it is a design made by a person. Self-assembling molecules don't have to be made by anyone's hand. Harnessed is a better word for my concept of what God did with life that assembled itself from the ground up. Design doesn't mean that building blocks have to be designed by hand. Just because it ends up a certain way doesn't mean that how it got there was not somewhat haphazard in its coming together. Design doesn't have to mean "artificial." Design can mean "naturally came together as ordained." Edited March 16, 2015 by DragonLancer
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Funny that we cant even discuss the main argument because somehow you think "design" is defined as "god". Design means there is a designer. Irreducible Complexity is the supposition that some things in biology are designed so complexly that only God could have designed them.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 There is nothing idiosyncratic the way I'm using them my friend. You are just insisting that your use of these descriptors is the only way, and then you quote me a dictionary source as if that helps your cause. They are perfectly descriptive of what I am getting at. You are insisting that someone cannot be an atheist in a sense if he rejects Zeus or the Christian Trinitarian Glob/Blob. You are insisting that the only kind of atheist is a person that rejects all beings out there. That doesn't work for Transhumanists who have a concept of beings out there that are aliens, which includes Dawkins. That includes us also as Mormons, but excludes Trinitarian Christians. Mormons believe that not only God is an alien, but that our spirits are not native to this planet, so we are also aliens. You insist that supernatural means anything that requires faith. I reject that. I say supernatural is anything that is obviously mythical and no substance or no chance in reality. The Mormon God is part of a known species. He is not supernatural. So. I say that I am using the words just fine, and I disagree with you. Just because you use the words differently and try to clobber me with the dictionary doesn't mean there is anything idiosyncratic about how I speak. Joseph Smith was not an Atheist. He definitely believed in God. I fully accept that there are beings out there. Some of whom may be so technologically advanced that we'd consider them Gods. Heck on our own world a mere 415 years ago you'd be burnt at the stake by Christians if you tried to tell them there were other beings out there.SEE Giordano Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno Supernatural means pertaining to God. That's the definition. Sorry if you don't like it. I don't have any faith in Shiva, or Zeus, but I do have faith in El and his Son Yeshua bar Yosef. That is a statement of faith. What is the biology of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being? Then you disagree with the dictionary. All I am saying is that if you choose to do so then communication become very difficult.
DragonLancer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Joseph Smith was not an Atheist. He definitely believed in God. I fully accept that there are beings out there. Some of whom may be so technologically advanced that we'd consider them Gods. Heck on our own world a mere 415 years ago you'd be burnt at the stake by Christians if you tried to tell them there were other beings out there.SEE Giordano Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno Supernatural means pertaining to God. That's the definition. Sorry if you don't like it. I don't have any faith in Shiva, or Zeus, but I do have faith in El and his Son Yeshua bar Yosef. That is a statement of faith. What is the biology of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being? Then you disagree with the dictionary. All I am saying is that if you choose to do so then communication become very difficult. You haven't listened to a word I have said, or haven't wanted to. I think I'm done trying. Good day. You haven't "won" in some kind of dictionary showdown or something. Sorry. You are just plain wrong. The biology of an omnipotent being is a human body without blood and glorified. Go read an anatomy book and your scriptures. Edited March 16, 2015 by DragonLancer
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Design means there is a designer. Irreducible Complexity is the supposition that some things in biology are designed so complexly that only God could have designed them.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityYour supposition lacks proper definition. Irreducible complexity posits only that certain biologic materials/ systems are too complex to have arisen by chance alone.
thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Your supposition lacks proper definition. Irreducible complexity posits only that certain biologic materials/ systems are too complex to have arisen by chance alone. Evolution is not chance alone.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429970.600-random-no-more-evolution-isnt-down-to-chance-alone.html#.VQc-muE99lc
Nofear Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 FAIR isnt the church. Its not my claims you are trying to debunk, its the church official doctrine you are trying to debunk. Very correct, FAIR isn't the Church. It's just collates some various perspectives for convenience. The wisdom of Pres. Clark's counsel is quite apparent. Coupled with Pres. Hinckley's statement (though he had his own opinions on the matter) doesn't cast your stance in a good light: "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest" 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) FAIR isnt the church. Its not my claims you are trying to debunk, its the church official doctrine you are trying to debunk. How do you define official church doctrine? A useful definition please. Edited March 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 How do you define official church doctrine? A useful definition please.That which consistently gets published by the church.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Evolution is not chance alone.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429970.600-random-no-more-evolution-isnt-down-to-chance-alone.html#.VQc-muE99lcThe mechanism of change is chance coupled with selection of that chance.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Very correct, FAIR isn't the Church. It's just collates some various perspectives for convenience. The wisdom of Pres. Clark's counsel is quite apparent. Coupled with Pres. Hinckley's statement (though he had his own opinions on the matter) doesn't cast your stance in a good light: "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest"The 1909 statement Origin of Man by the first presidency teaches that Adam was the first man and that he did not come from evolution of a lower animal species. That is the official doctrine.
Recommended Posts