Facebook conversation

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Today I was having a Facebook conversation with an atheist friend. He quoted some guy named Dyson, "Littlewood's law of miracles states that in the course of any normal person's life, miracles happen at the rate of roughly one per month. The proof of the law is simple. During the time that we are awake and actively engaged in living our lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see and hear things happening at a rate of one per second. So the total number of events that happen to us is about 30,000 per day, or about a million per month. With few exceptions, these events are not miracles because they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month"

I didn't know how to reply rationally. Please help. The Atheists do know how to do some very good gymnastics to explain away everything  I think I am simply wasting my time with him because nothing helps him. He just keeps making clever arguments, but he won't listen to my main points. I tell him many Atheism problems, but he quickly finds an answer or solution to everything. His faith in Atheism is so strong I seriously doubt he is ever going to change his mind. He thinks my arguments are weak and long debunked. He insists I don't understand Atheism. 

So I wonder if it is even possible to change someone's mind during an online conversation? I think will be done soon. 

Update: He Told me Ramsey Theory explains "my religious experience" and shared video. In the comment section some are saying the same thing that Ramsey Theory explains religions.  I am not good at all at Math, I have no idea how to give a good rational response.  Help. 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Today I was having a Facebook conversation with an atheist friend. He quoted some guy named Dyson, "Littlewood's law of miracles states that in the course of any normal person's life, miracles happen at the rate of roughly one per month. The proof of the law is simple. During the time that we are awake and actively engaged in living our lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see and hear things happening at a rate of one per second. So the total number of events that happen to us is about 30,000 per day, or about a million per month. With few exceptions, these events are not miracles because they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month"

I didn't know how to reply rationally. Please help. The Atheists do know how to do some very good gymnastics to explain away everything  I think I am simply wasting my time with him because nothing helps him. He just keeps making clever arguments, but he won't listen to my main points. I tell him many Atheism problems, but he quickly finds an answer or solution to everything. His faith in Atheism is so strong I seriously doubt he is ever going to change his mind. He thinks my arguments are weak and long debunked. He insists I don't understand Atheism. 

So I wonder if it is even possible to change someone's mind during an online conversation? I think will be done soon. 

Rather than providing reasons why he personally shouldn't be an atheist, I would explain to him why you choose to believe in God. Here's what I mean: I would explain to him the reason why you choose to believe in a just God is you refuse to allow yourself to believe that hate, evil, injustice,, unfairness, cruelty, misery, hopelessness, meaningless, ,despair, death and destruction win in the end. For example, I would say he might be content to believe the monstrous crimes of the world's genocidal tyrants will never be redressed and the cruel monsters themselves will never have to adequately pay for their crimes, but your strong inborn sense of justice and reason won't allow you to imagine all things won't be ultimately judged with the appropriate rewards or punishments meted out by a perfect intelligence. I would tell him the amazing order, consistently and beauty found throughout the universe encourages you to believe all things exist for a wise and glorious purpose and that true love endures forever.

I would tell him he is free to believe existence is the product of some kind of extremely unlikely accident but you choose to believe there are intelligent beings in the universe who have learned how to harness the consistency and reliability of universal law in order to overcome hate with love, evil with goodness, injustice with justice, unfairness with equity, cruelty with kindness, misery with happiness, hopelessness replaced with the confident expectation that goodness will triumph in the end, that meaningless with be replaced with the joy of trusting that life has a noble ultimate purpose, that despair will be replaced with mighty and motivating faith, death replaced with everlasting life, and that destruction and entropy will be overcome by divine creative power.

I would say that whether one chooses to be a believer or an atheist the facts of history and the current state of things remains exactly the same. But what does make a difference is that with belief comes hope, but with unbelief there is only the dark, hopeless vision of purposelessness known as nihilism. I would tell him that you have observed existence is affirmed upon the immutable scientifically confirmed principle that there must be opposition in all things in order for things to exist, and for this reason you chose to believe hope is just as real as despair and because you believe hope is real you utterly refuse to surrender to the miserable notion of a meaningless existence.

Finally, I would tell him if he wants to believe that the dark side of existence will win out in the end, that is his prerogative. But as far you are concerned, you will continue maintain the bright hope you feel within your mind and heart that encourages you to believe a loving, wise and perfect intelligence has the solemn and sacred responsibility to make sure good will triumph and all will be made right in the end, and that thanks to a wonderful atoning Savior justice and mercy will coexist forever in perfect harmony divine.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rchorse]

Littlewood's law is nonsense. It's just a bunch of arbitrary definitions configured in a way to support his pre-determined conclusion. It can't be refuted because of the way the terms have been defined. But at the same time, the way the terms have been defined makes the law completely meaningless.

It's like me defining God as myself and then saying to an atheist I can prove God exists because I exist. Pointless.

[MorningStar]

Sounds like an ingrate to me.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, rchorse said:

Littlewood's law is nonsense. It's just a bunch of arbitrary definitions configured in a way to support his pre-determined conclusion. It can't be refuted because of the way the terms have been defined. But at the same time, the way the terms have been defined makes the law completely meaningless.

It's like me defining God as myself and then saying to an atheist I can prove God exists because I exist. Pointless.

Yes of course it is complete nonsense. Same for Ramsey theory.  

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Today I was having a Facebook conversation with an atheist friend. He quoted some guy named Dyson, "Littlewood's law of miracles states that in the course of any normal person's life, miracles happen at the rate of roughly one per month. The proof of the law is simple. During the time that we are awake and actively engaged in living our lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see and hear things happening at a rate of one per second. So the total number of events that happen to us is about 30,000 per day, or about a million per month. With few exceptions, these events are not miracles because they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month"

I didn't know how to reply rationally. Please help. The Atheists do know how to do some very good gymnastics to explain away everything  I think I am simply wasting my time with him because nothing helps him. He just keeps making clever arguments, but he won't listen to my main points. I tell him many Atheism problems, but he quickly finds an answer or solution to everything. His faith in Atheism is so strong I seriously doubt he is ever going to change his mind. He thinks my arguments are weak and long debunked. He insists I don't understand Atheism. 

So I wonder if it is even possible to change someone's mind during an online conversation? I think will be done soon. 

Update: He Told me Ramsey Theory explains "my religious experience" and shared video. In the comment section some are saying the same thing that Ramsey Theory explains religions.  I am not good at all at Math, I have no idea how to give a good rational response.  Help. 

 

Perhaps you could tell him that Satan changed the randomness for miracles...that if Satan hadn't existed we'd see Miracle more often ...blame it on Satan

[SamuelTheLamanite]

30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Perhaps you could tell him that Satan changed the randomness for miracles...that if Satan hadn't existed we'd see Miracle more often ...blame it on Satan

Not funny. Is the change to the 116 pages a joke?  According to D&C 10 the changes did happen. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not funny. Is the change to the 116 pages a joke?  According to D&C 10 the changes did happen. 

NO that did not happened...Joseph was covering his butt...and made up a cover story in the likely event the pages turned up...he knew he could never re write the 116 lost pages word for word...so he made up a revelation to cover himself.  

Stop and think for a minute...if Smith was who he claimed to be...and the 116 pages did turn up...would the claimed "alteration" of the pages by evil designing men, written in Iron Gall Ink not have been self evident for all to see had these claimed alterations been made?  Have you ever tried to remove Iron Gall Ink form paper so that there is no evidence of its removal. Impossible.   The process to remove it involves acid. Have you ever tried to forge the same hand writing as someone else?  This is why when you examine the Joseph Smith papers you see alterations that are evident on the paper...lines through words, no erase marks, any change to the words are evident.  D&C 10 is exactly the kind of claimed revelation one would expect to have from someone who didn't want to make an attempt to do a re-dictation.  Go back and re read D&C 10...it a complete farce of an excuse that could only be played on unquestioning/unthinking followers.

Smith knew he couldn't repeat the 116 lost pages...so he had no alternative but to not make the attempt...any attempt on his part would have exposed him and foiled his plans.  I might add...that had he been able to re dictate the lost 116 pages it would have confirmed his abilities as a translator...but he couldn't do it

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Today I was having a Facebook conversation with an atheist friend. He quoted some guy named Dyson, "Littlewood's law of miracles states that in the course of any normal person's life, miracles happen at the rate of roughly one per month. The proof of the law is simple. During the time that we are awake and actively engaged in living our lives, roughly for eight hours each day, we see and hear things happening at a rate of one per second. So the total number of events that happen to us is about 30,000 per day, or about a million per month. With few exceptions, these events are not miracles because they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month"

I didn't know how to reply rationally. Please help. The Atheists do know how to do some very good gymnastics to explain away everything  I think I am simply wasting my time with him because nothing helps him. He just keeps making clever arguments, but he won't listen to my main points. I tell him many Atheism problems, but he quickly finds an answer or solution to everything. His faith in Atheism is so strong I seriously doubt he is ever going to change his mind. He thinks my arguments are weak and long debunked. He insists I don't understand Atheism. 

So I wonder if it is even possible to change someone's mind during an online conversation? I think will be done soon. 

Update: He Told me Ramsey Theory explains "my religious experience" and shared video. In the comment section some are saying the same thing that Ramsey Theory explains religions.  I am not good at all at Math, I have no idea how to give a good rational response.  Help. 

 

You are a good, spiritual guy and you must keep your faith- until you understand how to deal with these guys you are a babe in the woods on your own.  Don't let it get to you or hurt your testimony, follow your heart

You do not have sufficient knowledge of philosophy to deal with these guys- they are ridiculously wrong but your philosophy is insufficient to handle their arguments.  My advice is to break it off because you will not change them or change their minds

I am sorry if my attitude here is condescending- I don't mean it to be- you are clearly an intelligent guy,  that has nothing to do with it-  it's just that you are not yet educated in these kinds of arguments, so break it off.   Stay here and keep studying before you take on the big boys!

[The Nehor]

To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi:

"You can't win but there are alternatives to fighting."

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not funny. Is the change to the 116 pages a joke?  According to D&C 10 the changes did happen. 

Don't worry about it.

The BOM was a direct revelation from God, not a "translation" in the traditional sense.  Remember Joseph also - by revelation- changed large portions of the bible, without a manuscript or anything in front of him.  The Book of Abraham does not correspond to the Egyptian text either, but that is irrelevant- it came directly into Joseph's mind

I know these ideas are new to you, but there are ways to see these things which back up the church completely, but you have to get educated in these things.  Hang around here, check out FAIR, take it slow and get educated and don't get yourself lost in the woods without a gun, fighting the bears with your fingernails vs claws.

There is a new way to see the world waiting for you if you will let it in.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Rather than providing reasons why he personally shouldn't be an atheist, I would explain to him why you choose to believe in God. Here's what I mean: I would explain to him the reason why you choose to believe in a just God is you refuse to allow yourself to believe that hate, evil, injustice,, unfairness, cruelty, misery, hopelessness, meaningless, ,despair, death and destruction win in the end. For example, I would say he might be content to believe the monstrous crimes of the world's genocidal tyrants will never be redressed and the cruel monsters themselves will never have to adequately pay for their crimes, but your strong inborn sense of justice and reason won't allow you to imagine all things won't be ultimately judged with the appropriate rewards or punishments meted out by a perfect intelligence. I would tell him the amazing order, consistently and beauty found throughout the universe encourages you to believe all things exist for a wise and glorious purpose and that true love endures forever.

I would tell him he is free to believe existence is the product of some kind of extremely unlikely accident but you choose to believe there are intelligent beings in the universe who have learned how to harness the consistency and reliability of universal law in order to overcome hate with love, evil with goodness, injustice with justice, unfairness with equity, cruelty with kindness, misery with happiness, hopelessness replaced with the confident expectation that goodness will triumph in the end, that meaningless with be replaced with the joy of trusting that life has a noble ultimate purpose, that despair will be replaced with mighty and motivating faith, death replaced with everlasting life, and that destruction and entropy will be overcome by divine creative power.

I would say that whether one chooses to be a believer or an atheist the facts of history and the current state of things remains exactly the same. But what does make a difference is that with belief comes hope, but with unbelief there is only the dark, hopeless vision of purposelessness known as nihilism. I would tell him that you have observed existence is affirmed upon the immutable scientifically confirmed principle that there must be opposition in all things new order for things to exist and for this reason you chose to believe hope is just as real as despair; and because you believe hope is real you utterly refuse to surrender to the miserable notion of a meaningless existence.

Finally, I would tell him if he wants to believe that the dark side of existence will win out in the end, that is his prerogative. But as far you are concerned, you will continue maintain the bright hope you feel within your mind and heart that encourages you to believe a loving, wise and perfect intelligence has the solemn and sacred responsibility to make sure good will triumph and all will be made right in the end, and that thanks to a wonderful atoning Savior justice and mercy will coexist forever in perfect harmony divine.

I agree with all you say here, but this argument will not work.

You have to meet these guys on their own turf and show that it is THEIR views are outmoded and ridiculous and then they still will not believe you.

Until you understand that "positivism is dead" and all that means, your arguments with them don't stand a chance.  And they won't listen to testimony.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not funny. Is the change to the 116 pages a joke?  According to D&C 10 the changes did happen.

The changes aren't a joke.
Your using that event to dismiss everything you don't like in Church history is a joke.

[Bobbieaware]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with all you say here, but this argument will not work.

You have to meet these guys on their own turf and show that it is THEIR views are outmoded and ridiculous and then they still will not believe you.

Until you understand that "positivism is dead" and all that means, your arguments with them don't stand a chance.  And they won't listen to testimony.

I realized before I expressed myself that my points likely wouldn't convince a hardcore atheist to believe in God. My point was that perhaps there's at least a way to explain to atheists why believers find the atheistic option so unappealing, and why people with healthy minds and positive outlooks would find it undesirable and unproductive to embrace a system of belief that affirms the good guys are going spectacularly to loose in the end. It could be that after this realization dawns on the atheists that some of them will come to understand their proselytizing mission is, of necessity, calculated to rob people of their belief that goodness, justice and love will reign triumphant in the end, and after all is said and done destroying faith, hope and a belief in perfect love isn't necessarily a very good thing to do., 

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

His faith in Atheism is so strong I seriously doubt he is ever going to change his mind.

Just wanted to focus on this phrase right here for a moment...

Mormons believe that 'faith' is defined as "hope for things which are not seen, but which are true."  Is that the definition you would agree with?

Atheism itself is defined as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

And as an atheist, I would disagree that my lack of belief in God--or a lack of 'faith' in God, if you prefer--can accurately be described as 'faith in' a lack of belief in God.  It doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that anyone has "faith in atheism."  That's like saying atheists "have faith in a having no faith" in the existence of God.  It's nonsensical. 

If 'faith' is a "hope" for something, I actually very much would prefer to believe that an afterlife actually does exist, and that there is a loving God who recognizes me, my individuality and the accomplishments of my life, and wants to reward me for the love and good works of my life that I leave behind at the time of my death.  That is a very attractive paradigm to believe, over simply believing we cease to exist once our body stops functioning.  I'd MUCH rather believe in God, than not.

However, despite what I might hope to be true, the majority of evidence that I have experienced and have been exposed to indicates that that beautiful religious story simply isn't true.  Against my will, the evidence compels me to believe something different than the concept of God, heaven, and an afterlife.  Belief isn't a choice I make... it's not an act of will or willpower.  I can't force my deepest, innermost self to believe something my head simply cannot accept.  Evidence is presented, and the left hemisphere that governs my analytical mind is going to either buy in to what is being presented, or disbelieve it.  And when I'm being fully honest with myself, to me (and I make this claim only for myself, not for anyone else), the evidence is so compelling that God doesn't exist (at least, as how he/she/it is presented and characterized in any literal sense by most mainstream religions/mythologies) is overwhelming to such an extent that I'm unable to believe, despite hoping otherwise. 

Left with the alternative, then, that this life is all we have, I have two choices:

a)  I can sink into despair and live a life of either selfish hedonism or one void of meaning or purpose, OR

b) I can treat the time I have in this mortal coil as precious, valuable, and my only time left to make a meaningful difference in the world, speaking out for personal and social justice, equity in human relationships, respect for life, love, family, and community, etc. 

As an optimist who feels drawn to light and goodness, I choose the latter... and in so doing, have found peace--because whether or not my perception of the evidence is wrong, and whether or not there's a god or an afterlife, I will have spent my time living a life "well lived" that I believe any god worth adoration would find valuable and acceptable as an appropriate measure of service and sacrifice in behalf of my fellow loved ones and human and global family... And if not, it's still a life that I feel good and worthwhile and well-spent, even if I cease to exist when I die.

In sum, I think it doesn't make sense to suggest that atheists "have faith" in atheism.  Some of us are reluctant atheists who hope for something different, even when the evidence compels us to believe otherwise.

My two cents--others' mileage will vary.

D

Edited September 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Just wanted to focus on this phrase right here for a moment...

Mormons believe that 'faith' is defined as "hope for things which are not seen, but which are true."  Is that the definition you would agree with?

Atheism itself is defined as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

And as an atheist, I would disagree that my lack of belief in God--or a lack of 'faith' in God, if you prefer--can accurately be described as 'faith in' a lack of belief in God.  It doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that anyone has "faith in atheism."  That's like saying atheists "have faith in a having no faith" in the existence of God.  It's nonsensical. 

If 'faith' is a "hope" for something, I actually very much would prefer to believe that an afterlife actually does exist, and that there is a loving God who recognizes me, my individuality and the accomplishments of my life, and wants to reward me for the love and good works of my life that I leave behind at the time of my death.  That is a very attractive paradigm to believe, over simply believing we cease to exist once our body stops functioning.  I'd MUCH rather believe in God, than not.

However, despite what I might hope to be true, the majority of evidence that I have experienced and have been exposed to indicates that that beautiful religious story simply isn't true.  Against my will, the evidence compels me to believe something different than the concept of God, heaven, and an afterlife.  Belief isn't a choice I make... it's not an act of will or willpower.  I can't force my deepest, innermost self to believe something my head simply cannot accept.  Evidence is presented, and the left hemisphere that governs my analytical mind is going to either buy in to what is being presented, or disbelieve it.  And when I'm being fully honest with myself, to me (and I make this claim only for myself, not for anyone else), the evidence is so compelling that God doesn't exist (at least, as how he/she/it is presented and characterized in any literal sense by most mainstream religions/mythologies) to such an extent that I'm unable to believe, despite hoping otherwise. 

Left with the alternative, then, that this life is all we have, I have two choices: I can sink into despair and live a life of either selfish hedonism or one void of meaning or purpose, OR I can treat the time I have in this mortal coil as precious, valuable, and my only time left to make a meaningful difference in the world, speaking out for personal and social justice, equity in human relationships, respect for life, love, family, and community, etc.  As an optimist who feels drawn to light and goodness, I choose the latter... and in so doing, have found peace--because whether or not my perception of the evidence is wrong, and whether or not there's a god or an afterlife, I will have spent my time living a life "well lived" that I believe any god worth adoration would find valuable and acceptable as an appropriate measure of service and sacrifice in behalf of my fellow loved ones and human and global family... And if not, it's still a life that I feel good and worthwhile and well-spent, even if I cease to exist when I die.

In sum, I think it doesn't make sense to suggest that atheists "have faith" in atheism.  Some of us are reluctant atheists who hope for something different, even when the evidence compels us to believe otherwise.

My two cents--other mileage will vary.

D

So what you are saying is that you really just want to sin right?  

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I realized before I expressed myself that my points likely wouldn't convince a hardcore atheist to believe in God. My point was that perhaps there's at least a way to explain to atheists why believers find the atheistic option so unappealing, and why people with healthy minds and positive outlooks would find it undesirable and unproductive to embrace a system of belief that affirms the good guys are going spectacularly to loose in the end. It could be that after this realization dawns on the atheists that some of them will come to understand their proselytizing mission is, of necessity, calculated to rob people of their belief that goodness, justice and love will reign triumphant in the end, and after all is said and done destroying faith, hope and a belief in perfect love isn't necessarily a very good thing to do., 

I totally agree with you but the basis of the argument you just gave is that it is "true" because it gives you a positive attitude toward life

Their response would be that this is a crutch you need to deal with "reality"

The point that one needs to learn through philosophy is that your argument is actually EXACTLY right and is a perfectly valid argument with a Pragmatic view of truth as shown by William James and Rorty and others- NONE of whom were actually "religious" in a conventional sense.

So your argument is perfectly valid using the Deflationary Theory of Truth or the Pragmatic Theory of Truth.

But your typical atheist will not get it- they are locked into positivism and the correspondence theory of truth.

So now you have to teach the atheist that their very theory of truth is NOT VALID and yours is!!

THAT was my point- that to take on these guys you have to show them that they are the ones who are not up to date in their understanding of these issues, using their "brothers" agnostics who know that the arguments of the New Athiests are a bunch of bunk!  These brother agnostics fully understand the "validity" of the religious point of view, they just do not accept it.

One such individual, Thomas Nagel, of NYU, widely published and a central figure in the philosophy of mind says he "HOPES" there is no God but he knows that even his BELIEF is a matter of faith.

Then we also have Dworkin, another atheist who understand religion perfectly, and advises others to form "secular religions"  

Read this- it was written just before he died, knowing he was about to die, and it defines what the function of religion is- and ultimately YOU ARE SAYING WHAT HE SAYS in describing the function of religion in giving you the right attitude!   http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

This is what I have been trying to show- that contemporary EDUCATED atheists understand these matters perfectly and are not to be feared by theists one bit because they know that religion is rationally justifiable- just that they happen not to accept these beliefs.

So you are right on the money in your post- but an uneducated atheist will just disregard your mode of thought, and most LDS who understand things as you do cannot justify your position to an atheist either

THAT is the irony- LDS people have no idea how strong their position is, because they are so bogged down in thinking in sectarian patterns!

If you accept the outmoded correspondence theory of truth as 99% of Christians do- because it is traditional-- you do not have a chance in a discussion with an uneducated atheist.

But if you understand the Deflationary and Pragmatic theories of truth, the atheists really do not make sense at all.  They are applying the wrong rules in the argument and making the wrong assumptions.

I hope that also helps us understand each other- I still have not given it up.  In essence you have to abandon your outmoded theory of what "truth" is and suddenly atheism is not a problem.   THEY end up looking like the dummies!

Truth is seeing things as they are- even if that is undefinable.  Things as they are include reality with all its nuances, and those nuances include the usefulness of a good attitude which gives meaning to your life, as you say above.

Your post is therefore "true" as it is, and states things as they are that all humans need to have a positive attitude toward life, and producing that attitude is creating a paradigm for yourself.  THAT is taking matter unorganized and organizing it as a god in embryo.  Your position is unarguable to anyone educated in philosophy in my view, even though a New Atheist would not see it that way.

Rorty would applaud your argument, Wittgenstein would applaud your argument, William James, Thomas Nagel, Plantinga, and on and on and on.

But these dufus New Atheists don't know that and neither unfortunately do most LDS folks so we are stuck arguing with them on their own ignorant terms because we ourselves are also ignorant.

Such is life.

Sorry for the long rant- I had to get it off my chest.  I see the present state of LDS understanding of philosophy as a tragedy, quite honestly.  It's on our side, but no one knows it because it is "the philosophies of men".

If they agree with you, why would you not use that?????

We could convert the world if we could just figure that out- it converted me and I believe NOTHING unless that belief is justified by some rational theory of truth.  I have found it and I am going nowhere!

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't worry about it.

 The Book of Abraham does not correspond to the Egyptian text either, but that is irrelevant- it came directly [from] Joseph's mind

 

See there are things that we can agree on...with a little modification

[Daniel2]

12 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Rather than providing reasons why he personally shouldn't be an atheist, I would explain to him why you choose to believe in God. Here's what I mean: I would explain to him the reason why you choose to believe in a just God is you refuse to allow yourself to believe that hate, evil, injustice,, unfairness, cruelty, misery, hopelessness, meaningless, ,despair, death and destruction win in the end. For example, I would say he might be content to believe the monstrous crimes of the world's genocidal tyrants will never be redressed and the cruel monsters themselves will never have to adequately pay for their crimes, but your strong inborn sense of justice and reason won't allow you to imagine all things won't be ultimately judged with the appropriate rewards or punishments meted out by a perfect intelligence. I would tell him the amazing order, consistently and beauty found throughout the universe encourages you to believe all things exist for a wise and glorious purpose and that true love endures forever.

I would tell him he is free to believe existence is the product of some kind of extremely unlikely accident but you choose to believe there are intelligent beings in the universe who have learned how to harness the consistency and reliability of universal law in order to overcome hate with love, evil with goodness, injustice with justice, unfairness with equity, cruelty with kindness, misery with happiness, hopelessness replaced with the confident expectation that goodness will triumph in the end, that meaningless with be replaced with the joy of trusting that life has a noble ultimate purpose, that despair will be replaced with mighty and motivating faith, death replaced with everlasting life, and that destruction and entropy will be overcome by divine creative power.

I would say that whether one chooses to be a believer or an atheist the facts of history and the current state of things remains exactly the same. But what does make a difference is that with belief comes hope, but with unbelief there is only the dark, hopeless vision of purposelessness known as nihilism. I would tell him that you have observed existence is affirmed upon the immutable scientifically confirmed principle that there must be opposition in all things in order for things to exist, and for this reason you chose to believe hope is just as real as despair and because you believe hope is real you utterly refuse to surrender to the miserable notion of a meaningless existence.

Finally, I would tell him if he wants to believe that the dark side of existence will win out in the end, that is his prerogative. But as far you are concerned, you will continue maintain the bright hope you feel within your mind and heart that encourages you to believe a loving, wise and perfect intelligence has the solemn and sacred responsibility to make sure good will triumph and all will be made right in the end, and that thanks to a wonderful atoning Savior justice and mercy will coexist forever in perfect harmony divine.

Couple of thoughts...

As I mentioned previously, "belief" isn't an act of choice or willpower, so phrases like "whether one chooses to be a believer or an atheist" don't make sense to reality as I experience it.  As I've experienced it and see the issue, 'belief' or 'disbelief' of any particular claim is the natural, un-chosen result of how one's brain responds/interprets the evidence that is presented.  I certainly can choose to study all the evidence of a particular belief claim, and can choose to attempt to be unbiased by studying all facets/aspects (or choose to shield myself from evidence that contracts my own personal hopes/biases), but the result of that study--how compelling the evidence is, as it relates to the claim being made--is the natural result of examining the facts.

For example, some people believe the earth is a circular, flat, round disk floating in space, and that humanity inhabits the flat surfaces of this disk suspended in space.  I can examine the data all I want.... and the data leads me to believe the earth is round.  I cannot simply "choose" to believe otherwise... I can CLAIM I believe otherwise, I can ATTEMPT to shield myself from evidence that contradicts what I hope to be true (assuming I'm invested in wanting to believe the earth is flat), but in my heart of hearts, once my mind has reached a certain point, I can't really affect whether or not I truly--in my heart of hearts--believe or disbelieve the flat earth theory.

The same things are true regarding truth claims advocating a literal belief in Santa Claus, Zeus, Odin, Nessie, Sasquatch, a belief the sun is at the center of the universe, demonic possession as an explanation for medical manifestations, etc.  Belief isn't simply a matter of choice.  Its the natural result of how our brains process data.

Secondly, the bleak darkness of nihilism you've characterized is not the natural, unavoidable result of a lack of believe in God.  Many (including myself) view many of the naturalistic principles of evolution as a reason to progress and evolve to adapt to the challenges of the survival for the sake of improving the quality and sustainable future of our species as a whole, and secular humanism is just one of many optimistic paths forward that don't depend on God for morality, goodness, light, and knowledge:

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1] [2] [3] [4]

 

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently

evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a

science of morality

I'm reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's vision of a unified humanity that had moved past a shared belief in a deity, but was still optimistic about our future.  He, of course, is just one visionary (and in the entertainment industry, no less) who believed in and worked toward a better future for us all.

Additionally, some religions (such as my own, Unitarian Universalism) don't require a faith in dogma or deity, but focus on shared values, instead of beliefs, to build a better world.  One can even be religious, optimistic, and believe that goodness and light will prevail without believing in a god.

As I mentioned before, many of us who don't believe in god find the shortness of our lives here as reasons to make the most of the time we have here, and our focus is improving life today, here, and now, rather than resigning ourselves to a pessimistic narrative suggesting the world is increasingly negative and ultimately predestined (or at least prophesied) to end in doom and gloom before being saved at the last day by a god-savior.  Many of us take a more optimistic view that WE must be responsible for creating heaven on earth today, for making the world a better place, because no one else is coming "to save us."  For me, that means the glass isn't half empty---it's a glass half-full... To quote the great Dr. King, I can and must be the change I wish to see in the world.

As far as religion being preferable because otherwise it means that individuals who've committed unspeakably horrific acts won't be punished, and it being inconceivable that such individuals will "never pay" for their crimes against others.... Well.... I guess I've never felt that moral superiority or even justice depends on someone "paying" by "suffering."  In my view, the ultimate goal would be to work towards a world where such evils aren't committed.  Individuals who've committed murder, rape, abuse, violence, etc. throughout history exist no more... why should I worry about whether or not they "suffered" because of their crimes?  The best possible alternative is to remove them from existence (which, frankly, is why I support the death penalty for those who've unequivocally been found to be guilty of such crimes).  Death itself--especially when it's a cessation of existence--is punishment enough.  I don't need to feel a desire for them to burn in the fires of hell and experience pain... in fact, I feel it's even more moral to remove them from life, without harboring a lingering desire to punish or feel pain.  That's even one reason why the idea of a universal atonement doesn't even make sense to me.  I can't fathom a God who would allow his son to suffer unspeakable and unimaginable pain and suffering just to appease some sense of universal 'justice.'  Often times, crimes carry their own implicit natural ramifications, instead of finding other ways to appease justice that don't demand the suffering of others, and certainly innocents.  Why must anyone else suffer to qualify for forgiveness...?  The thought makes reason stare, in my mind.  If I can forgive those who have harmed me without the need for calling for their pain, suffering, or blood as a means of punishment, why can't god...?  Can't the healing power of forgiveness itself be enough to satisfy the alleged "demands of justice"?  If not, that just seems like barbarism that's elevated "an eye for an eye" to a celestial level.

Anyhoo... as always, I appreciate the opportunity for respectful discussion and dialogue.

Thanks,

D

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are a good, spiritual guy and you must keep your faith- until you understand how to deal with these guys you are a babe in the woods on your own.  Don't let it get to you or hurt your testimony, follow your heart

You do not have sufficient knowledge of philosophy to deal with these guys- they are ridiculously wrong but your philosophy is insufficient to handle their arguments.  My advice is to break it off because you will not change them or change their minds

I am sorry if my attitude here is condescending- I don't mean it to be- you are clearly an intelligent guy,  that has nothing to do with it-  it's just that you are not yet educated in these kinds of arguments, so break it off.   Stay here and keep studying before you take on the big boys!

No no, I couldn't disagree more.  This guy, the atheist likely has a lot of good that Samuel can learn from.  Atheists are not to be feared or shunned or rejected out of hand.  The gospel that I believe in tells us to learn from everything around us.  There is much we can learn from each other.  The most prudent way forward is for him to try and understand the arguments of this person, not to defend his current beliefs, how is that going to help anyone?  

My suspicion is that both of these people can learn some good things from each other.  You tell him to keep to his faith, how is that going to help anyone him grow?  The way we grow in life is to challenge our assumptions, to let down our guard and our prejudice and to try and understand the other person.  Try critical thinking and empathy.   How else can we grow?  It sounds to me like you're advocating for him to hunker down and put his head in the sand like a good little ostrich. 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't worry about it.

The BOM was a direct revelation from God, not a "translation" in the traditional sense.  Remember Joseph also - by revelation- changed large portions of the bible, without a manuscript or anything in front of him.  The Book of Abraham does not correspond to the Egyptian text either, but that is irrelevant- it came directly into Joseph's mind

I know these ideas are new to you, but there are ways to see these things which back up the church completely, but you have to get educated in these things.  Hang around here, check out FAIR, take it slow and get educated and don't get yourself lost in the woods without a gun, fighting the bears with your fingernails vs claws.

There is a new way to see the world waiting for you if you will let it in.

Its not a fight and its not something to fear.  This is tribalism and loaded language.  He should open his mind to new concepts, consider that his earlier assumptions might have been wrong, but don't get him all geared up for battle.  Don't put up walls of defense.  How's that the path to greater learning?  Open up to understanding.  Let go of your dogmas.  

I agree to take things slowly and get educated.  Explore, dig deep, research, but don't prepare for battle.  Its not a war between good and evil information.  Its a struggle to find truth in a confusing environment with many different opinions.  Focus on critical thinking skills.  Learn about your biases, and challenge your biases.  Try to understand the perspectives of others, and seek for sources that try to balance the information and look at things as objectively as possible.  Continue to challenge the groups you are a part of, continue to try to avoid group think, continue to reassess and reappraise based on new information.  Continue to learn and grow, this is eternal progression, this is Mormonism.  

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's vision of a unified humanity that had moved past a shared belief in a deity, but was still optimistic about our future.  He, of course, is just one visionary (and in the entertainment industry, no less) who believed in and worked toward a better future for us all.

I've been a fan for some time, but I always thought the whole 'no religion in the future' thing was one of the most far fetched aspects of the Star Trek universe - though the 'no money' thing comes pretty close. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Couple of thoughts...

As I mentioned previously, "belief" isn't an act of choice or willpower, so phrases like "whether one chooses to be a believer or an atheist" don't make sense to reality as I experience it.  As I've experienced it and see the issue, 'belief' or 'disbelief' of any particular claim is the natural, un-chosen result of how one's brain responds/interprets the evidence that is presented.  I certainly can choose to study all the evidence of a particular belief claim, and can choose to attempt to be unbiased by studying all facets/aspects (or choose to shield myself from evidence that contracts my own personal hopes/biases), but the result of that study--how compelling the evidence is, as it relates to the claim being made--is the natural result of examining the facts.

For example, some people believe the earth is a circular, flat, round disk floating in space, and that humanity inhabits the flat surfaces of this disk suspended in space.  I can examine the data all I want.... and the data leads me to believe the earth is round.  I cannot simply "choose" to believe otherwise... I can CLAIM I believe otherwise, I can ATTEMPT to shield myself from evidence that contradicts what I hope to be true (assuming I'm invested in wanting to believe the earth is flat), but in my heart of hearts, once my mind has reached a certain point, I can't really affect whether or not I truly--in my heart of hearts--believe or disbelieve the flat earth theory.

The same things are true regarding truth claims advocating a literal belief in Santa Claus, Zeus, Odin, Nessie, Sasquatch, a belief the sun is at the center of the universe, demonic possession as an explanation for medical manifestations, etc.  Belief isn't simply a matter of choice.  Its the natural result of how our brains process data.

Secondly, the bleak darkness of nihilism you've characterized is not the natural, unavoidable result of a lack of believe in God.  Many (including myself) view many of the naturalistic principles of evolution as a reason to progress and evolve to adapt to the challenges of the survival for the sake of improving the quality and sustainable future of our species as a whole, and secular humanism is just one of many optimistic paths forward that don't depend on God for morality, goodness, light, and knowledge:

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1] [2] [3] [4]

 

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently

evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a

science of morality

I'm reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's vision of a unified humanity that had moved past a shared belief in a deity, but was still optimistic about our future.  He, of course, is just one visionary (and in the entertainment industry, no less) who believed in and worked toward a better future for us all.

Additionally, some religions (such as my own, Unitarian Universalism) don't require a faith in dogma or deity, but focus on shared values, instead of beliefs, to build a better world.  One can even be religious, optimistic, and believe that goodness and light will prevail without believing in a god.

As I mentioned before, many of us who don't believe in god find the shortness of our lives here as reasons to make the most of the time we have here, and our focus is improving life today, here, and now, rather than resigning ourselves to a pessimistic narrative suggesting the world is increasingly negative and ultimately predestined (or at least prophesied) to end in doom and gloom before being saved at the last day by a god-savior.  Many of us take a more optimistic view that WE must be responsible for creating heaven on earth today, for making the world a better place, because no one else is coming "to save us."  For me, that means the glass isn't half empty---it's a glass half-full... To quote the great Dr. King, I can and must be the change I wish to see in the world.

As far as religion being preferable because otherwise it means that individuals who've committed unspeakably horrific acts won't be punished, and it being inconceivable that such individuals will "never pay" for their crimes against others.... Well.... I guess I've never felt that moral superiority or even justice depends on someone "paying" by "suffering."  In my view, the ultimate goal would be to work towards a world where such evils aren't committed.  Individuals who've committed murder, rape, abuse, violence, etc. throughout history exist no more... why should I worry about whether or not they "suffered" because of their crimes?  The best possible alternative is to remove them from existence (which, frankly, is why I support the death penalty for those who've unequivocally been found to be guilty of such crimes).  Death itself--especially when it's a cessation of existence--is punishment enough.  I don't need to feel a desire for them to burn in the fires of hell and experience pain... in fact, I feel it's even more moral to remove them from life, without harboring a lingering desire to punish or feel pain.  That's even one reason why the idea of a universal atonement doesn't even make sense to me.  I can't fathom a God who would allow his son to suffer unspeakable and unimaginable pain and suffering just to appease some sense of universal 'justice.'  Often times, crimes carry their own implicit natural ramifications, instead of finding other ways to appease justice that don't demand the suffering of others, and certainly innocents.  Why must anyone else suffer to qualify for forgiveness...?  The thought makes reason stare, in my mind.  If I can forgive those who have harmed me without the need for calling for their pain, suffering, or blood as a means of punishment, why can't god...?  Can't the healing power of forgiveness itself be enough to satisfy the alleged "demands of justice"?  If not, that just seems like barbarism that's elevated "an eye for an eye" to a celestial level.

Anyhoo... as always, I appreciate the opportunity for respectful discussion and dialogue.

Thanks,

D

 

I was once a very convinced hardcore atheist who made a conscious decision to believe in God in spite of myself because I grew weary of  living a joyless, hopeless, meaningless life.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No no, I couldn't disagree more.  This guy, the atheist likely has a lot of good that Samuel can learn from.  Atheists are not to be feared or shunned or rejected out of hand.  The gospel that I believe in tells us to learn from everything around us.  There is much we can learn from each other.  The most prudent way forward is for him to try and understand the arguments of this person, not to defend his current beliefs, how is that going to help anyone?  

I am not sure why he keeps insisting that Ramsey Theory and Littlewood's law explain religion. Can you explain please? I am very bad at Math. 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are a good, spiritual guy and you must keep your faith- until you understand how to deal with these guys you are a babe in the woods on your own.  Don't let it get to you or hurt your testimony, follow your heart

You do not have sufficient knowledge of philosophy to deal with these guys- they are ridiculously wrong but your philosophy is insufficient to handle their arguments.  My advice is to break it off because you will not change them or change their minds

Yes, I will have to eventually. There are a lot of things I still don't understand. 

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 as always, I appreciate the opportunity for respectful discussion and dialogue.

Sure, let's talk about Ramsey Theory and Littlewood's law. I don't get why my friend thinks Ramsey Theory explains religion. You yourself are an Atheist so perhaps you can help me understand. 

 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So what you are saying is that you really just want to sin right?