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

[SmileyMcGee]

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).

😄 I empathize with seeing my responses as ridiculous (just look at my responses to mfbukowski two years ago). 

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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

What? I don't claim to have "religious experience." Asserting that experience is necessarily religious is no different than asserting that visual stimuli are necessarily evidence of ancient animals.

[SmileyMcGee]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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.

😊 I should have included the qualification "without the aid of a psychedelic."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

47 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

What? I don't claim to have "religious experience." Asserting that experience is necessarily religious is no different than asserting that visual stimuli are necessarily evidence of ancient animals.

So, what's your point?  That we can't trust our senses?

[SmileyMcGee]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, what's your point?  That we can't trust our senses?

More like, be aware of the propensity towards and problem of conflating direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas with which we overlay that experience. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

More like, be aware of the propensity towards and problem of conflating direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas with which we overlay that experience. 

I agree with that.  However, would you agree that given the above problem, that a solution is to have as many persons look at a particular problem in order to have more assurance that one isn't conflating the direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas,etc.?  Also, in the case of the dinosaur footprint, haven't many scientists taken a look at this and called it a dinosaur footprint?  At a certain point, can't we rely, to a high degree, on the consensus opinion of the scientists?  I see the sun and feel the sun and everyone I know sees the sun and feels the sun, so, I can be pretty sure that the sun is there.  The same goes for gravity and other scientifically discovered phenomena.  However, other areas such as UFOs, where one has to rely solely on the testimony of the individual, who conflates experience with his desires to believe, one has to be more skeptical, right? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

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. 

Dang that's good stuff!

Some get it, some don't. I have already said it every way I know how to.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree with that.  However, would you agree that given the above problem, that a solution is to have as many persons look at a particular problem in order to have more assurance that one isn't conflating the direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas,etc.?  Also, in the case of the dinosaur footprint, haven't many scientists taken a look at this and called it a dinosaur footprint?  At a certain point, can't we rely, to a high degree, on the consensus opinion of the scientists?  I see the sun and feel the sun and everyone I know sees the sun and feels the sun, so, I can be pretty sure that the sun is there.  The same goes for gravity and other scientifically discovered phenomena.  However, other areas such as UFOs, where one has to rely solely on the testimony of the individual, who conflates experience with his desires to believe, one has to be more skeptical, right? 

How many people did you poll about marrying your wife?

The issue here is what gives meaning to YOUR life.

Religion is about your attitude toward life, not scientific facts.

Either you get that or you are bogged down in trying to see scripture as a science text. It's not.

Many here will never understand that apparently 

If you are unconfident in your attitude toward the world then any religion will do, just don't drink the Kool aid. Remember that and you will be fine.

Edited May 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Religion is about your attitude toward life, not scientific facts.

Do you think this is at least partially why there are so many different religions? 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

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. 

I defended scientific concept to get this response from you. 

So how about you simply identify the scientific work that you find limited and problematic.

[Meadowchik]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dang that's good stuff!

Some get it, some don't. I have already said it every way I know how to.

What was good about that?

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How many people did you poll about marrying your wife?

The issue here is what gives meaning to YOUR life.

Religion is about your attitude toward life, not scientific facts.

Either you get that or you are bogged down in trying to see scripture as a science text. It's not.

Many here will never understand that apparently 

If you are unconfident in your attitude toward the world then any religion will do, just don't drink the Kool aid. Remember that and you will be fine.

That may be religion for you, but it's not Mormonism. And it's certainly not the only way to see religion in general.

Perhaps some people will not understand because your paradigm is not adequate for them. I see it as potentially useful commentary, and not nearly as foundational as you seem to think it is.

Maybe the next generation has moved beyond that...isn't that possible?

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think this is at least partially why there are so many different religions? 

Absolutely

But my opinion is that there ARE definable "best" opinions based on certain value systems and of course my pick is Mormonism, but your opinion may differ.   I am just convinced that like science, the best ideas weed themselves out in kind of an evolutionary way until the most rational and "best" value system will evolve and for me that points to Mormonism.

But of course others will differ about that.  I have been Catholic, Buddhist and atheist officially and of course now I am Mormon- but that was my personal process.  Perhaps I am projecting but that's my story and I am sticking to it.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That may be religion for you, but it's not Mormonism. And it's certainly not the only way to see religion in general.

Perhaps some people will not understand because your paradigm is not adequate for them. I see it as potentially useful commentary, and not nearly as foundational as you seem to think it is.

Maybe the next generation has moved beyond that...isn't that possible?

Not Mormonism?

I have a temple recommend and was perfectly truthful- and have a leadership position in the stake Melchizadek priesthood.  If I am not a Mormon you better contact my stake president who is one of my close friends and ask him if I am Mormon.

And you are an ex-Mormon.  Who are you to say what Mormonism is since you clearly do not understand how my position is Mormon?

Edited May 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

On 5/3/2017 at 6:26 AM, 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. 

 

What dinosaur?  There is no dinosaur there. And there are many ways to interpret that so-called evidence of whatever you or other people think that is.

But let's suppose for a moment that there really was a dinosaur that left that footprint, somehow.  How many years ago was that, if that really happened?

The interesting thing about time on this planet is that it is all dated either before or after Christ. Either B.C. or A.D.

Not too shabby as evidence that "Jesus Christ was here".

Edited May 8, 2017 by Ahab

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Absolutely

But my opinion is that there ARE definable "best" opinions based on certain value systems and of course my pick is Mormonism, but your opinion may differ.   I am just convinced that like science, the best ideas weed themselves out in kind of an evolutionary way until the most rational and "best" value system will evolve and for me that points to Mormonism.

But of course others will differ about that.  I have been Catholic, Buddhist and atheist officially and of course now I am Mormon- but that was my personal process.  Perhaps I am projecting but that's my story and I am sticking to it.

I don't think evolution of religious ideas is how the brethren would phrase it, even though history is on your side. However, I like your uncorrelated thinking.

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

It was a simple dinosaur print, if you want to interpret as lepracaun, you are welcome to it.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

More like, be aware of the propensity towards and problem of conflating direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas with which we overlay that experience. 

I want to relate one that happened to me last Saturday; Some weekends when I get a break from watching Football I go to Mexican Market, I love some vendors like my friends and this guy sells all kinds of esoteric stuff; from fossils to medallions, gold, silver..you name it. Last Friday he told me he had some ambers...I did take a look at them and declared "Fake", of course he was very insulted, but I knew how to test them so I peeked inside and saw another universe , I could not believe it.....I dished out 250$ of my hard earned money and brought it home. When I looked at it under the sunlight I was amazed there was not a square inch empty spot, it was filled with flys, ticks, worms, I was so happy...Not only that, the amber has many bubbles...here I have the atmospheric samples of the Planet Earth 90 to 120 Million years old.....Here a small portion of it

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What dinosaur?  There is no dinosaur there. And there are many ways to interpret that so-called evidence of whatever you or other people think that is.

But let's suppose for a moment that there really was a dinosaur that left that footprint, somehow.  How many years ago was that, if that really happened?

The interesting thing about time on this planet is that it is all dated either before or after Christ. Either B.C. or A.D.

Not too shabby as evidence that "Jesus Christ was here".

I don't see how that could be considered evidence  of anything. Anno domini first came in usage back in the 6th century when catholic christianity was dominant. Also, why the resistance to the dinosaur footprint?

[MormonVideoGame]

 

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

What is the difference between a religious testimony and alternative medicine testimony? Alternative medicine "works" for thousands of individuals, including cancer victims, you can find many personal testimonies about it. However, here is what the science says, "People with cancer who choose alternative medicine instead of mainstream cancer treatments may be putting themselves at serious risk. They are giving up the only proven methods of treating their disease" https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/complementary-and-alternative-methods-and-cancer/risks-of-not-using-mainstream-treatment.html

 Or fortune-telling? Many people believe in fortune-telling because of some personal experience. 

Is personal experience a reliable method? How please. 

On 5/5/2017 at 2:52 PM, Calm said:

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

The questions is for all intelligent LDS here

[MormonVideoGame]

On 5/3/2017 at 7:51 AM, 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. 

Same question above please 

[Bob Crockett]

On 5/3/2017 at 6:53 AM, RevTestament said:

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than most other historical figures you probably believe in - like Buddha. Numerous NT writers wrote of Him. Josephus wrote of Him. The Roman historian, Tacitus wrote of Him. Do you really believe if there was a piece of parchment saying "I was here - Yeshua" that you would be more likely to believe? You don't believe because you don't want to believe, but only choose to believe the rest of history.

Josephus:   I think the consensus is -- late emendation.  There's a huge cottage industry of Christian apologists who attempt to argue otherwise.

Tacitus:  Almost a century later. 

So, the contemporaneous evidence is actually very thin to none, unless you consider the Gospels themselves.  I realize that as Christians we give strong support for the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, but -- no known contemporaneous manuscripts themselves of the Gospels; no near-contemporaneous quotes by third parties; nothing.

But, here we have Paul who surely would have been an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry in some fashion, but mentions nothing about it.  Why not?  The only homily that Paul attributes to Jesus -- more blessed to give than receive -- is nowhere mentioned in the Gospels.

I say all this not to undermine faith but to point out that there is something fundamentally amiss in the way the church pulled together the New Testament.   It seems the Gospels themselves are the product of many hands and "schools."  The only reliable mss of the NT appear to be Paul's letters, and even those have problems.  

So, what does this mean? Who knows.  It does not affect my faith.   There is absolutely no evidence of Goshen or an Israelite presence in Egypt during the days of Joseph and Moses, but the Book speaks for itself.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[SmileyMcGee]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree with that.  However, would you agree that given the above problem, that a solution is to have as many persons look at a particular problem in order to have more assurance that one isn't conflating the direct sensory experience with the concepts and ideas,etc.?  Also, in the case of the dinosaur footprint, haven't many scientists taken a look at this and called it a dinosaur footprint?  At a certain point, can't we rely, to a high degree, on the consensus opinion of the scientists?  I see the sun and feel the sun and everyone I know sees the sun and feels the sun, so, I can be pretty sure that the sun is there.  The same goes for gravity and other scientifically discovered phenomena.  However, other areas such as UFOs, where one has to rely solely on the testimony of the individual, who conflates experience with his desires to believe, one has to be more skeptical, right? 

Is there a sensation called "sun"? Or are there sensations that we perceive and collectively associate with an idea of "sun"? Is the idea of "sun" necessary to the sensations associated with it? Can any of this answer your metaphysical inquiry of what is "really there"? Does consensus resolve metaphysical inquiry? Can it explain direct experience?

Edited May 9, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think evolution of religious ideas is how the brethren would phrase it, even though history is on your side. However, I like your uncorrelated thinking.

Well semantics is semantics.

I would simply quote Alma, which says the same thing. 

Alma 32

 

Quote

 

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

 

The truth grows organically after experimentation to find what is "sweet" to us and what works in our lives.

I think my interpretation is quite clearly represented here.

D&C 93

Quote

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

How can truth "act in its sphere" and act for itself as does all intelligence if it does not grow organically and independent of other truths?

Yes the church has been afflicted with Neoplatonic interpretations of scripture, but that is not what scripture actually says.

[SmileyMcGee]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I defended scientific concept to get this response from you. 

So how about you simply identify the scientific work that you find limited and problematic.

First I want apologize if my previous comment came off a bit rough. There's no reason for that. 

To answer you questions, I find all science limited and none of it necessarily problematic. None of what I have said could possibly invalidate a scientific idea. I don't know how I could do that, but many of the assertions made in this thread seem like metaphysics disguised as science. That, to me, does propose a very difficult problem.