"I was there", A simple message accompanied by a visual evidence could suffice

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Please read my previous post here:

Feel free to give some examples of people who die for "stuff they know is BS." I know some people die for causes I would not, but that doesn't mean they believe it to be BS. Even so, my premise still stands that martyrs generally don't die to perpetrate a fraud or a lie.

I retract my statement and modify it to say people die all the time for stuff you and I think are BS. But hey they had faith in it so it was a ok right? 

[Calm]

nvm, I really don't want to get involved in more debates today.  Rev is capable, quite capable of explaining himself.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[SmileyMcGee]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

No, you can interpret relics any direction you want, as Daniken does, whom I used to believe in a slavish mentality, in my youth..

It's funny how Daniken's cover was blown in my skeptical mind; Daniken found this animal skull (cow, lama or something), there was two perfect holes in it's forehead, in his book (Chariots of gods I think) he claimed " See the evidence of Ancient Aliens fired a gun and killed it". But the simple fact was an extinct Saber tooth animal nailed it....I felt deflated...that was it....everything fell apart afterwards.

So, how would you know that this "simple fact" you assert is not just you "interpreting [a] relic any direction you want?" Do you see the issue with your post? Methinks your skepticism stops working when it approaches a belief you hold...

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So in other words religion needs faith because there is not enough evidence to back up the claims of the religion.
Of course.  That's why it is a religion and not a science.

So have faith in a possible fantasy because facing reality may make life to hard? 
I face reality every day of my life.  Sometimes it is hard. I am a research scientist that requires me to test things and provide evidence for everything I do. It's believing in what happens after this life that really requires the faith.

So where does faith begin and end? 
It doesn't

Based on what you say above we can just pick some belief and have faith in it regardless of its merits. 
Right. But I would assume the person choosing would appreciate the merits and deem them important for his life and doesn't harm other people.

And why would those with no faith have regrets if there is an after life? 
Because if they would have had faith in a God and followed His gospel they would have ended up in a better place in heaven.

For you it seems faith is the ultimate principle on which to base one's life.
Bingo !  But it's not the only principle.

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by JAHS

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

So, how would you know that this "simple fact" you assert is not just you "interpreting [a] relic any direction you want?" Do you see the issue with your post? Methinks your skepticism stops working when it approaches a belief you hold...

I don't see anything other than the picture I uploaded it is a dinosaur footprint, or would you assert otherwise?

[SmileyMcGee]

23 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't see anything other than the picture I uploaded it is a dinosaur footprint, or would you assert otherwise?

Well, yes and no. I think there is an important distinction to be made here that gets at the heart of what we're discussing. That distinction would be between "knowing something is" and "knowing something as". Let's apply the distinction to something simple, like the letter "A". Visually I see something when I see "A". That I see something is "irrefutable" to me. I can't see something and deny that I see something at the same time. But let's say that I have never been taught the alphabet. Would I know this as "the letter A"? Probably not. But then my parents teach me the alphabet, they teach me to assign certain properties to this thing that I see. They teach me to associate it with a certain position in the alphabet, to associate it with certain sounds, etc. This association is reinforced so frequently that when I see "A" I can't separate it from the properties that I have learned to assign to it. When I see "A" I seemingly instantaneously know it as what I have conceptualized it to be: a letter that makes certain sounds. Now, does knowing something as something tell me anything about what it is? How would I know? How would I begin to argue one way or the another? Take away all of the learning and conceptualizing, is what I see necessarily the "letter A"? 

Instead of "A", let's consider the image you posted. I went to elementary school. I was taught about these large animals and that they lived millions of years ago. I was shown objects and was taught that they are things called fossils and these things "should" be associated with this idea of dinosaurs. When I see the image you posted, I know it as a dinosaur footprint; i.e., I assigned the idea and all the properties of a dinosaur that I have been taught to the visual data that I see. I have no problem with that. But do I know it is a dinosaur footprint? No. How would anybody know that? Perhaps they could provide more "evidence'? Well, what evidence could you provide that isn't, like the image you posted, a product of some subjective conceptualizing that occurs in the mind? To me, The conflation of "knowing something as" and "knowing something is" is dogmatism, whether it be empirical, religious, or some other dogmatism. 

You associating visual data (an image) with the existence of a dinosaur is no different than a religious person associating a feeling with the existence of God. How could you possibly prove that you know one association is more objectively true than the other? What can all of your learning, conceptualizing, associating, thinking, and testing say about the ultimate truth of what is?   

Edited May 7, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[thesometimesaint]

We all make ice cream castles in the sky. Moving into that ice cream castle in the sky isn't a good idea.

[Atheist Mormon]

23 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Well, yes and no. I think there is an important distinction to be made here that gets at the heart of what we're discussing. That distinction would be between "knowing something is" and "knowing something as". Let's apply the distinction to something simple, like the letter "A". Visually I see something when I see "A". That I see something is "irrefutable" to me. I can't see something and deny that I see something at the same time. But let's say that I have never been taught the alphabet. Would I know this as "the letter A"? Probably not. But then my parents teach me the alphabet, they teach me to assign certain properties to this thing that I see. They teach me to associate it with a certain position in the alphabet, to associate it with certain sounds, etc. This association is reinforced so frequently that when I see "A" I can't separate it from the properties that I have learned to assign to it. When I see "A" I seemingly instantaneously know it as what I have conceptualized it to be: a letter that makes certain sounds. Now, does knowing something as something tell me anything about what it is? How would I know? How would I begin to argue one way or the another? Take away all of the learning and conceptualizing, is what I see necessarily the "letter A"? 

Instead of "A", let's consider the image you posted. I went to elementary school. I was taught about these large animals and that they lived millions of years ago. I was shown objects and was taught that they are things called fossils and these things "should" be associated with this idea of dinosaurs. When I see the image you posted, I know it as a dinosaur footprint; i.e., I assigned the idea and all the properties of a dinosaur that I have been taught to the visual data that I see. I have no problem with that. But do I know it is a dinosaur footprint? No. How would anybody know that? Perhaps they could provide more "evidence'? Well, what evidence could you provide that isn't, like the image you posted, a product of some subjective conceptualizing that occurs in the mind? To me, The conflation of "knowing something as" and "knowing something is" is dogmatism, whether it be empirical, religious, or some other dogmatism. 

You associating visual data (an image) with the existence of a dinosaur is no different than a religious person associating a feeling with the existence of God. How could you possibly prove that you know one association is more objectively true than the other? What can all of your learning, conceptualizing, associating, thinking, and testing say about the ultimate truth of what is?   

I DON'T get any of your ideas, I am not associating any data with ANY fantasy. I've asked a straightforward question with a very simple picture and you are responding me : "You associating visual data (an image) with the existence of a dinosaur" ......Man...That is a Dinosaur print who existed in Cretaceous or Jurassic era.....

[Teancum]

So in other words religion needs faith because there is not enough evidence to back up the claims of the religion.
Of course.  That's why it is a religion and not a science.

 

Teancum:

But why should religion get a special pass. To me it seems the reason it gets a special pass and has to lean almost entirely on faith is because if it doesn't it falls apart and crumbles.

So have faith in a possible fantasy because facing reality may make life to hard? 
I face reality every day of my life.  Sometimes it is hard. I am a research scientist that requires me to test things and provide evidence for everything I do. It's believing in what happens after this life that really requires the faith.

Teancum:

But if I recall you argued faith gives people hope in somethings more than this world of trial and tears.  I understand that because I lived the first 48 years of my life this way before I started questioning faith based claims.  As a scientist you know more about the scientific method than I do.  But it is interesting to me that you work to prove and test all things with evidence in the way you do your work but yet on the most major of issues you take it on faith.  How are you able to do this when you would not on so much of what you do?  I am honestly curious about this so please don't view it is critical.

So where does faith begin and end? 
It doesn't

Teancum:

But it  has to.  Even Alma 32 teaches this.

Based on what you say above we can just pick some belief and have faith in it regardless of its merits. 
Right. But I would assume the person choosing would appreciate the merits and deem them important for his life and doesn't harm other people.

Teancum:

Well there is the rub.  What you have faith in others view as damaging and harmful. Some would even say you have faith in a false prophet and false Jesus and thus are going the burn in hell.  That is what their faith tells them.  Others have faith that killing those who don't believe in their brand faith is all quite fine as well as killing apostates from that faith.  But it is good for them because in spite of the evidence that their faith is likely misplaced it is still faith.  And who are you to decide that a faith that motivates people to harm others in bad.  Maybe they are right and that is what God wants?  But who knows.  Because God does not really say anything to us other than through a few self proclaimed prophets that tell us to have faith that what they say is really from God. 

What a dilemma.

And why would those with no faith have regrets if there is an after life? 
Because if they would have had faith in a God and followed His gospel they would have ended up in a better place in heaven.

Teancum:

So once again we see that for some reason we think that God requires faith above all things and will punish those who don't have faith in His gospel whatever that is. As a Mormon you think that is your LDS Gospel but boy are you in the minority on that one.

For you it seems faith is the ultimate principle on which to base one's life.
Bingo !  But it's not the only principle.

Teancum>

So faith is God's prime directive.  That and for Mormons free will.  Or moral agency. 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/4/2017 at 1:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The "Passover Plot," yes.  For the Christian, that is indeed the ultimate question, just as for both Jews and Christians, the issue comes down to whether there really was a Moses and the Exodus.  It may be a historical fact that there were Israelites in Palestine then (and now), but are they the Chosen People of Yahweh?  Or is that a self-fulfilling fantasy?

Of course though, even if it is a self-fulfilling fantasy, which is unknowable with certitude either way, Christianity itself has been pragmatically proven to be the greatest force for good the world has ever known in my opinion.

The "Golden Rule" itself as a single maxim, though deducible even in the absence of Christianity, (as Kant did, though the deduction might be question begging) has certainly gotten more widely known through Christianity than through any other medium if we want to think Christianity as an ethical system instead of historically "true".  The belief alone and the story, even if it is nothing more, has given countless people peace and the courage to face death and feel their sins are forgiven-  I think that is not even debatable.  The story of each and every martyr proves that.  Even if it is a myth, their fear of death was gone.

That was reason enough for me to adopt it as an ethical system and a way to reconcile my personal Catholic guilt before I had a testimony- and that is the main reason I still see no logical need for Christianity to be historically true to keep all its value as an ethical system intact.

Any belief that has changed the lives of billions for the better over 2000 years is reason enough to see that belief system as pragmatically true, even if we see it through the lens of Alma 32 alone.  It has certainly born fruit which is "sweet" to billions.

But now of course I have a personal testimony and that has changed everything.  But even that of course to a positivist is still a fantasy

But to a good pragmatist the effects of the belief alone is all that matters, and we can back that up scripturally with Alma 32.  And that is one main rational reason I am a Mormon, even if my most important reasons are purely testimony. 

[SmileyMcGee]

11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I DON'T get any of your ideas, I am not associating any data with ANY fantasy. I've asked a straightforward question with a very simple picture and you are responding me : "You associating visual data (an image) with the existence of a dinosaur" ......Man...That is a Dinosaur print who existed in Cretaceous or Jurassic era.....

How can you possibly see those things? Dinosaur, print, jurassic, fossil, evidence...those are concepts. They are ideas that you are attaching to visual stimuli. Did you smell happiness today, too? 

[Rajah Manchou]

56 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Did you smell happiness today, too? 

I like to apply happiness to a cotton ball or terra cotta plate and place it in my car to experience its energizing aroma while driving.

[Meadowchik]

On 03/05/2017 at 3:26 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

When I saw Utah's wilderness first time 26 yrs old, I had little or no knowledge about stuff like Evolution, paleontology or geology. It didn't take me long to be convinced about the origins of the Earth or Humans; it was simply a matter of evidence, which was so abundant in Utah in the form of Rocks, Fossils and geologic strata upon strata laying everywhere. 

It would be so wonderful if Jesus left a signature like this Dinosaur did. My lifelong struggle with belief would non-existent. 

 

But that would be too easy, right?

[Meadowchik]

On 03/05/2017 at 3:51 PM, JAHS said:

Religion is a matter of faith; not scientific evidence. If it was it would be a science and not a religion. You just have to choose to believe and go from there. It' a different kind of evidence you see as you enjoy the blessings one receives in your life by choosing to believe. 

Actually in LDS doctrine, religion should be both.  We believe all that is true.  When knowledge is unavailable, we act on faith.  When knowledge is obtained, faith is not required.  We then move forward with what we know and exercise faith in bridging the unknown.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

How can you possibly see those things? Dinosaur, print, jurassic, fossil, evidence...those are concepts. They are ideas that you are attaching to visual stimuli. Did you smell happiness today, too? 

We bought an acre or so next to farmland a few years ago.  Eventually I tried to plant fruit trees.  With a shovel, I discovered that our little patch of earth was full of smooth stones and pebbles.  Out came the pickax.  I even found the broken-off spike of a plow.  Apparently a farmer had tried to clear this patch of land but, given the state of the earth, gave up and it appears that these stones could have served a hindrance.

So, where did the rocks come from?  Did someone bury thousands of rocks and then bury them and then hide them with meadow grass and flowers and ground cover? No. There is a small stream running along theedge of our land.  I thought it was likely that, long ago, this stream was a river and that river deposited stones. Eventually, plant growth escaped the dry riverbed, then died, then became dirt, in which more plants grew.  After time, these river stone became completely buried.

Last summer we had a visit with our mayor, who told us about the history of our village.  He said that our little land was in the old path of the Rhine river, which eons ago experienced a change in course when the Alps appeared.

Those are some old rocks.

Or, in other words, scientists have observed the world and carefully explored the origins and causes of what they observed.  They've built large stores of knowledge based on generations of discovery.  Once many pieces of information are confirmed; concepts are frequently used to describe their meaning.  It is exactly because of this ability to build on knowledge and the concepts birthed by them that we are able to pursue happiness.  The modern world is completely dependent on science.  If I were you, I'd be concerned about preserving and improving science.  Dismissing it is counter-productive.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But that would be too easy, right?

Okay, what are you saying then? Should it be as hard as trying to spend a whole life to see evidence, like in my case? I don't consider myself irrational or stiff to dismiss an evidence out of hand.

[Atheist Mormon]

11 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

How can you possibly see those things? Dinosaur, print, jurassic, fossil, evidence...those are concepts. They are ideas that you are attaching to visual stimuli. Did you smell happiness today, too? 

It's not magic, hundreds of millions of years helped me to acquire this stereoscopic vision, I'm pretty happy about interpreting what I see. And I am happy to read your esoteric response (even though it borders to ridiculous).

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Okay, what are you saying then? Should it be as hard as trying to spend a whole life to see evidence, like in my case? I don't consider myself irrational or stiff to dismiss an evidence out of hand.

It was sarcasm

(Check my response to Smiley a couple posts up^^^)

As I got into my late thirties as a believing Mormon, I started to theorize that maybe God made every evidence of Him ambivalent and invisible, and with the Mormon God even falsifiable. Therefore it was that we were always subject to the ultimate faith test, that this is probably how it always was and always will be.

Now that I am exmormon, I freely take joy in knowing what I know and, if I do act in faith on something, that I get to chose under what conditions and whether to do so and answer only to myself.

It's pretty cool to just feel natural happiness from goodness and light.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

How can you possibly see those things? Dinosaur, print, jurassic, fossil, evidence...those are concepts. They are ideas that you are attaching to visual stimuli. Did you smell happiness today, too? 

How can you trust your religious experience? Maybe it is born of family and group pressure?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

How can you possibly see those things? Dinosaur, print, jurassic, fossil, evidence...those are concepts. They are ideas that you are attaching to visual stimuli. Did you smell happiness today, too? 

Welcome to the club. I cannot comprehend the stupidity of those who interpreted this brilliant comment as being anti science

Just staggering 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

We bought an acre or so next to farmland a few years ago.  Eventually I tried to plant fruit trees.  With a shovel, I discovered that our little patch of earth was full of smooth stones and pebbles.  Out came the pickax.  I even found the broken-off spike of a plow.  Apparently a farmer had tried to clear this patch of land but, given the state of the earth, gave up and it appears that these stones could have served a hindrance.

So, where did the rocks come from?  Did someone bury thousands of rocks and then bury them and then hide them with meadow grass and flowers and ground cover? No. There is a small stream running along theedge of our land.  I thought it was likely that, long ago, this stream was a river and that river deposited stones. Eventually, plant growth escaped the dry riverbed, then died, then became dirt, in which more plants grew.  After time, these river stone became completely buried.

Last summer we had a visit with our mayor, who told us about the history of our village.  He said that our little land was in the old path of the Rhine river, which eons ago experienced a change in course when the Alps appeared.

Those are some old rocks.

Or, in other words, scientists have observed the world and carefully explored the origins and causes of what they observed.  They've built large stores of knowledge based on generations of discovery.  Once many pieces of information are confirmed; concepts are frequently used to describe their meaning.  It is exactly because of this ability to build on knowledge and the concepts birthed by them that we are able to pursue happiness.  The modern world is completely dependent on science.  If I were you, I'd be concerned about preserving and improving science.  Dismissing it is counter-productive.

Look up category error. You totally missed the import of his post.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

It's not magic, hundreds of millions of years helped me to acquire this stereoscopic vision, I'm pretty happy about interpreting what I see. And I am happy to read your esoteric response (even though it borders to ridiculous).

If you can't understand it how could you possibly know it is ridiculous? 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Look up category error. You totally missed the import of his post.

Feel free to identify or rephrase what is apparently, to you, the only relevant import of his post.

I prefer to identify the objectivity that is quite reachable within subjective experience. 

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Welcome to the club. I cannot comprehend the stupidity of those who interpreted this brilliant comment as being anti science

Just staggering 

Category error sounds like a concept. Can you smell category error?

[SmileyMcGee]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

We bought an acre or so next to farmland a few years ago.  Eventually I tried to plant fruit trees.  With a shovel, I discovered that our little patch of earth was full of smooth stones and pebbles.  Out came the pickax.  I even found the broken-off spike of a plow.  Apparently a farmer had tried to clear this patch of land but, given the state of the earth, gave up and it appears that these stones could have served a hindrance.

So, where did the rocks come from?  Did someone bury thousands of rocks and then bury them and then hide them with meadow grass and flowers and ground cover? No. There is a small stream running along theedge of our land.  I thought it was likely that, long ago, this stream was a river and that river deposited stones. Eventually, plant growth escaped the dry riverbed, then died, then became dirt, in which more plants grew.  After time, these river stone became completely buried.

Last summer we had a visit with our mayor, who told us about the history of our village.  He said that our little land was in the old path of the Rhine river, which eons ago experienced a change in course when the Alps appeared.

Those are some old rocks.

Or, in other words, scientists have observed the world and carefully explored the origins and causes of what they observed.  They've built large stores of knowledge based on generations of discovery.  Once many pieces of information are confirmed; concepts are frequently used to describe their meaning.  It is exactly because of this ability to build on knowledge and the concepts birthed by them that we are able to pursue happiness.  The modern world is completely dependent on science.  If I were you, I'd be concerned about preserving and improving science.  Dismissing it is counter-productive.

hmmm...that's interesting. It may come as a surprise to you that I directly and frequently support the financial position of several scientific organizations. I am fascinated by the ideas that science produces and think many are very useful. But my acceptance of science does not include the arrogance of forgetting the problems and limitations of interpreting direct experience. Have you learned nothing from your transition away from Mormonism? You talk as if you freed yourself from the confinement of dogma, yet it seems you only redecorated the place with new stories and ideas, unaware that you're still living under the same roof. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by SmileyMcGee