Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And of atheism as well.

No atheism is not a faith based belief. 

Yes, I think it is.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

In fact is is not a belief at all. Lack of belief in something is not faith based. 

I suppose this largely comes down to an issue of semantics.

Fundamentally, I think deists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God exists.  Atheists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God does not exist.  Both are, in my view, statements borne of belief, not knowledge.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you believe Zeus is God?  Is your non belief faith based?  Odin?  How about hobbits and elves.  Is your not believing in such things based on faith?  Or something else.

You might want to review this:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/#:~:text=This is because atheists do,beliefs%2C convictions%2C and backgrounds.

I'm familiar.  See also here:

Quote

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
...

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.^[36]

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",^[37] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,^[38] and again in 1571.^[39] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.^[40] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,^[41] and appears in English about 1587.^[42]
...
In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophers. German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach considered God to be a human invention and religious activities to be wish-fulfillment. He influenced philosophers such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, who denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion.^{[154] 
...
5.}  Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since the absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
...
15.  Nielsen 2013: "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."

16. "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica Concise. Merriam Webster. Archived from the original on January 21, 2012. Retrieved December 15, 2011. Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems.

I think persons who go out of their way to affirmatively oppose belief in the existence of God typically do so from an ideological point of view.  That ideology becomes harder to characterize as a mere lack of belief.  It is, in my view, more accurately understood as an ideology contrary to and in competition with theism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why was human sacrifice needed for God to accept your repentance?

Bingo.

At the level of belief in a God of judgment and condemnation, it can be beneficial to believe in a mechanism by which the unpayable debt can be paid on one's behalf. 

At the level of communion with a God of love, human (or super-human) sacrifice is no longer needed for the payment of a debt to a God who doesn't condemn in the first place.  

But... what then do we make of the atonement?

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

... my beliefs would not change one iota because Jesus dwells in my heart  [emphasis manol's]

Ah.  At the level of communion with a God of love, "the atonement" becomes "the at-one-ment".  Which is more literal and more transformational than forgiveness. 

In my opinion.

Edited February 18, 2024 by manol

[manol]

Oops double post

Edited February 18, 2024 by manol

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Bingo.

At the level of belief in a God of judgment and condemnation, it can be beneficial to believe in a mechanism by which the unpayable debt can be paid on one's behalf. 

At the level of communion with a God of love, human (or super-human) sacrifice is no longer needed for the payment of a debt to a God who doesn't condemn in the first place.  

But... what then do we make of the atonement?

Ah.  At the level of communion with a God of love, "the atonement" becomes "the at-one-ment".  Which is more literal and more transformational than forgiveness. 

In my opinion.

Yes yes, and thanks for bringing that up.

I had finished all my studies for a masters in both philosophy and art history, both of which are about the attempted REPRESENTATION of human experience, especially the philosophy of language when I discovered the church.

At-one-ment is the key.  There was no possiblity at that point that I would believe that the earth was 6 thousand years old, but what I loved was that an Exalted human is immanent and used hammer and nails, as it were, needing material and a plan to create.  I loved that idea, and then Moroni 10 saying God can communicate directly to us to answer questions.

That's all I needed.

But then I found that people in the church actually took things literally.

That was a trial for me, and here we still are.

If God can personally teach us, why would we need fables, when we could ask God himself?

I tried it, and liked it.

Got clobbered big time by the spirit, using the LDS terminology.

But there was no need for historicity to make religion real in my life.  

God/Jesus/ the Spirit are ONE pragmatically for all PRACTICAL purposes.  Their mission is to bring ALL the children home, literally or figuratively, after they finished school and put away childish things.

There was no way I was going back to the ways others saw it. 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is.  

It depends on if it is active or passive…the second is where you don’t care about it one way or the other, so the default is you don’t believe.  That would be like not believing Manchester England is the best soccer team because you have no clue about soccer and maybe don’t even know Manchester England soccer team exists.  I have met a few atheists from Asia who were not raised in a religious culture at all and therefore know little about how God is viewed by believers and don’t care.  I would not say their position is faith based.  Sometimes people frame that as agnostic, but I think it lines up better with atheism as an absence of belief, they don’t care and don’t think about whether God exists.

Then there is the active belief where you don’t believe Manchester is the best soccer team because you believe Inter Milan or Real Madrid is better or some other reason.  Active is faith based imo.

To say there is no evidence though….that seems to me is a faith based position because one believes they are reasonable to discount people’s internal experiences when it is possible they are wrong to do so or they have faith in themselves they know enough to say there is no evidence.  It may not be a very active faith since we discount others’ experiences all the time in favor of our own (meaning little investment in it and probably could be persuaded to think otherwise if someone put some effort into it and either led them to be more open about the possibility of God existing or more closed).

Faith has a couple of different definitions though and one is how it is described in scripture as a gift from God or assurance of his presence and blessings.  I would say any form of atheism is not faith based in that sense.

One can also say believing the sun will rise tomorrow is faith, but that definition seems pretty worthless to me.  I think some atheists have this type of “faith” in that they just don’t see the presence of divine in the world, but haven’t been motivated to look for it.  This is close to, if not the same as passive faith I talk about above, imo.

I don’t think it’s that useful to equate two different levels of investment in belief or lack of belief just because one could apply the same term “faith” in each case.  It like, imo, having a discussion about romantic love and claiming whenever someone says “I love you” it’s romance ignoring that it could be friendship type of love or familial type of love.  Faith is usually intended not to just mean a subjective belief, but a strong subjective belief, a strong trust in the belief.  I don’t think one should assume an atheistic belief is always a strong conviction.

Edited February 18, 2024 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

It depends on if it is active or passive…the second is where you don’t care about it one way or the other, so the default is you don’t believe.  That would be like not believing Manchester England is the best soccer team because you have no clue about soccer and maybe don’t even know Manchester England soccer team exists.  I have met a few atheists from Asia who were not raised in a religious culture at all and therefore know little about how God is viewed by believers and don’t care.  I would not say their position is faith based.  Sometimes people frame that as agnostic, but I think it lines up better with atheism as an absence of belief, they don’t care and don’t think about whether God exists.

Then there is the active belief where you don’t believe Manchester is the best soccer team because you believe Inter Milan or Real Madrid is better or some other reason.  Active is faith based imo.

To say there is no evidence though….that seems to me is a faith based position because one believes they are reasonable to discount people’s internal experiences when it is possible they are wrong to do so or they have faith in themselves they know enough to say there is no evidence.  It may not be a very active faith since we discount others’ experiences all the time in favor of our own (meaning little investment in it and probably could be persuaded to think otherwise if someone put some effort into it and either led them to be more open about the possibility of God existing or more closed).

Faith has a couple of different definitions though and one is how it is described in scripture as a gift from God or assurance of his presence and blessings.  I would say any form of atheism is not faith based in that sense.

One can also say believing the sun will rise tomorrow is faith, but that definition seems pretty worthless to me.  I think some atheists have this type of “faith” in that they just don’t see the presence of divine in the world, but haven’t been motivated to look for it.  This is close to, if not the same as passive faith I talk about above, imo.

I don’t think it’s that useful to equate two different levels of investment in belief or lack of belief just because one could apply the same term “faith” in each case.  It like, imo, having a discussion about romantic love and claiming whenever someone says “I love you” it’s romance ignoring that it could be friendship type of love or familial type of love.  Faith is usually intended not to just mean a subjective belief, but a strong subjective belief, a strong trust in the belief.  I don’t think one should assume an atheistic belief is always a strong conviction.

THE ESSENCE OF PRAGMATIC RELIGION: IT WORKS

For those who demand historicity, I would recommend the STORY, not knowing if it literally happened or not, of the blind man vs the pharisees.

THIS is the central reason for a pragmatic approach to spiritual matters, and I, and others, WERE/ARE the "blind man".

IT is my personal story.

John 9:21- 39

Go ahead, read it again. The blind man knew nothing about Moses et al.

"I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind now I see"

That was me.

Edited February 18, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is.  

I suppose this largely comes down to an issue of semantics.

Fundamentally, I think deists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God exists.  Atheists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God does not exist.  Both are, in my view, statements borne of belief, not knowledge.

You are fundamentally misrepresenting the nature of atheism and faith. And are misusing the word “deism."

Atheists don’t believe in “God” in the same way that you, presumably, don’t believe in magical leprechauns who frolic around Ireland and hide their pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. You don’t have faith that leprechauns don’t exist. You simply don’t believe, i.e. lack a positive belief in them. If you got in a debate with somebody who did have faith in leprechauns, you’d probably say, “Based on the evidence I’ve seen, I just don’t believe in leprechauns. In principle I’m open to them existing, but the burden of proof is on you."

Not believing in leprechauns doesn’t tell me anything about what you do believe in.

Surely you can see how your lack of faith in leprechauns isn’t analogous to your faith in religion. Believing in something because of faith and lacking belief because of lack of evidence aren’t symmetrical positions. 

Deists are people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who subscribed to the philosophical position of Deism, which was popular in the Enlightenment. Deists rejected all miracles, revelation, and divine intervention, but thought that “God” created the universe with its natural laws, but then stepped back to watch it all play out.

I believe “theist” is the word you meant to juxtapose with “atheist.”  

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think persons who go out of their way to affirmatively oppose belief in the existence of God typically do so from an ideological point of view.  That ideology becomes harder to characterize as a mere lack of belief.  It is, in my view, more accurately understood as an ideology contrary to and in competition with theism.  

Atheism simply means lacking belief in God. It isn’t an ideology in its own right. Some atheists affirmatively oppose believe in God. Others don’t. All the word “atheist” does is say somebody lacks belief in one specific thing. It doesn’t say what they do believe in. In addition to being an atheist, I am a humanist and a metaphysical naturalist. Not all atheists share those world views with me.

Edited February 18, 2024 by Analytics

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is.  

I suppose this largely comes down to an issue of semantics.

Fundamentally, I think deists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God exists.  Atheists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God does not exist.  Both are, in my view, statements borne of belief, not knowledge.

I'm familiar.  See also here:

I think persons who go out of their way to affirmatively oppose belief in the existence of God typically do so from an ideological point of view.  That ideology becomes harder to characterize as a mere lack of belief.  It is, in my view, more accurately understood as an ideology contrary to and in competition with theism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you see faith and belief as the same thing then?  And if you do, how does that transfer to a denial of something (which is the opposite of belief in something)?  I'm not sure I understand how a denial of something can equal 'faith that it doesn't exist'.  Can you elaborate? 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is.  

You are simply wrong. 

I don't classify myself as atheist. More skeptical, or agnostic.  But atheism is a lack of belief in any supernatural being. Atheists don't ask you to take anything on faith.  Nada. They don't attempt to prove that there is no god.  Just that there is not evidence enough to support a belief in a god.

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suppose this largely comes down to an issue of semantics.

No it is not semantics at all.  

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fundamentally, I think deists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God exists. 

Ok

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Atheists express the empirically unproven and unprovable notion that God does not exist. 

Wrong.  Atheists do no attempt to prove there is no god. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Both are, in my view, statements borne of belief, not knowledge.

No.  There is no request to ask you or anyone to accept any particular belief based on faith.  Nada.  I think you argue this because you equate atheism with a movement or system of belief,  It is not that.  It really is a poor word. I don't believe in the tooth fairy but there is no word to classify me as a tooth fairy denier.  You don't believe Odin is god.  Is it faith that convinces you Odin is not god?

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think persons who go out of their way to affirmatively oppose belief in the existence of God typically do so from an ideological point of view. 

The atheists I listen to or read would totally disagree. All are open to the existence of a God they just don't see enough evidence to convince them and it is not their job to prove otherwise.  The one's making fantastic claims need to provide fantastic evidence. But they cannot. So they rely on faith.  Then they dismiss an atheist and asset that atheists rely on faith as well. They don't. Your argument is a false equivalency. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

That ideology becomes harder to characterize as a mere lack of belief.  It is, in my view, more accurately understood as an ideology contrary to and in competition with theism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You are simply wrong. No atheist I am aware of seeks converts and asks you to take their ideology and arguments on faith.  

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

To say there is no evidence though….that seems to me is a faith based position because one believes they are reasonable to discount people’s internal experiences when it is possible they are wrong to do so or they have faith in themselves they know enough to say there is no evidence.  It may not be a very active faith since we discount others’ experiences all the time in favor of our own (meaning little investment in it and probably could be persuaded to think otherwise if someone put some effort into it and either led them to be more open about the possibility of God existing or more closed).

Atheists do not say there is NO evidence for a supernatural god.  They say that there is little evidence and the evidence presented is not convincing.

 

Internal experiences are unique to the person thus not evidence.  If someone told you they prayed to know that Odin is God and they had some emotional internal metaphysical experience to convince them would you find that convincing enough evidence to persuade you that Odin, not Jesus, is God?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Atheists do not say there is NO evidence for a supernatural god.  They say that there is little evidence and the evidence presented is not convincing.

 

Right, we need another label here for those who are emphatic and absolute in their position on something, imo. Atheist is made to cover too many different categories in casual conversation, imo. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Internal experiences are unique to the person thus not evidence.

I disagree that they are not evidence.  First off, they may not be evidence most others will accept, but there are many who will accept the internal experience of another as evidence based on trust (hopefully earned). 

All experiences are internal because our awareness of them is internally processed and there is no way to tell if someone else reacts in identical ways.  

Plus agreement on what is defined as external evidence may often be assumed rather than actually agreed upon or only agreed on in macro ways. You may assume others see what you believe is external evidence the same way and science has gone quite a ways in making a language that is precise, but many studies cannot duplicate each other because variables are not clearly understood and if the softer sciences, the  tends to be more ambiguous.  Assumed identical external stimuli won’t give identical internal experiences.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Internal experiences are unique to the person thus not evidence. 

Does this idea stem from your belief that evidence must be observable to someone else and not just the person experiencing it to count as evidence?  Or are you defining evidence this way for a different reason?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Does this idea stem from your belief that evidence must be observable to someone else and not just the person experiencing it to count as evidence?  Or are you defining evidence this way for a different reason?

Intelligent question, thanks for asking this. I may be using “evidence” fundamentally differently than Teancum and we would just argue past each other 

Edited February 19, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Internal experiences are unique to the person thus not evidence.

I think it is by design that God doesn't provide irrefutable external evidence to the world. It would defeat much of the purpose of mortality were it otherwise. Nonetheless, one can receive evidence sufficient to own needs.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

 

Back to the survey (and not just a comment to Teancum). One of the most interesting things to me about the survey was the very interesting correlation between beliefs on various points and obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel and pious habits (Church attendance, prayer, scripture study, etc.). Completely and entirely unsurprising to me but data to back up one's suppositions is always nice.

Edited February 19, 2024 by Nofear

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

was the very interesting correlation between beliefs on various points and obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel and pious habits (Church attendance, prayer, scripture study, etc.). Completely and entirely unsurprising to me but data to back up one's suppositions is always nice.

It seems clear to me which way the arrow of causation is here, yet I suspect you view it the other way.

[Calm]

In the second article, I found this comment interesting and suggestive:

Quote

Interestingly, Gen-Z Latter-day Saints are not significantly more or less likely to be in the second cluster, while millennials are overrepresented. 

My guess is millennials had to deal with the deluge of internet info more on their own, while Gen Z benefited more from the Church incorporating more inoculation, etc practices in teaching.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems clear to me which way the arrow of causation is here, yet I suspect you view it the other way.

Hmm, I guess I didn't think of the data initially as causative, merely correlative. On reflection I would view them as mutually supportive, self-reinforcing. But I also believe the Savior's statement in John 7:17, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Was that the direction you had me thinking of?

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Internal experiences are unique to the person thus not evidence.  If someone told you they prayed to know that Odin is God and they had some emotional internal metaphysical experience to convince them would you find that convincing enough evidence to persuade you that Odin, not Jesus, is God?

Mi amigo!

Semantics, and category error.

If you personally observed a murder, and were the only "witness" would that count as evidence in court?

You betcha.

If you and 10 billion others favored or disfavored gay marriage, abortion, or whatever, is that evidence that those principles are true?  Just because others believe it too?

Nope.

Different categories.

And then semantics.  "GOD" is also a title; Krishna and Jesus,  Buddha and Allah, say, are seen by many as manifestations of the same being.  Is that evidence they right or wrong?

Nope 

Yet ALL of those can be seen as "THE Perfect Human" whose lives should be emulated, but none of these are "God".

Evidences of "reality" ? Nope, semantics!

Edited February 19, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mi amigo!

Semantics, and category error.

If you personally observed a murder, and were the only "witness" would that count as evidence in court?

You betcha.

If you and 10 billion others favored or disfavored gay marriage, abortion, or whatever, is that evidence that those principles are true?  Just because others believe it too?

Nope.

Different categories.

Unless I misunderstood him, I think Teancum agrees…because the eyewitness testimony is an external experience in his view while moral principles are internal….but not sure about the last.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems clear to me which way the arrow of causation is here, yet I suspect you view it the other way.

Proving causation in philosophy is a huge issue.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless I misunderstood him, I think Teancum agrees…because the eyewitness testimony is an external experience in his view while moral principles are internal….but not sure about the last.

I could have misunderstood...

Did not read the full discussion

Sorry all.  But every human experience is internal, unless shared in language

 🫠

Edited February 19, 2024 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Hmm, I guess I didn't think of the data initially as causative, merely correlative. On reflection I would view them as mutually supportive, self-reinforcing. But I also believe the Savior's statement in John 7:17, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Was that the direction you had me thinking of?

That makes sense. For me, at church I was taught that you fall away or lose testimony because you aren’t reading praying attending etc. I’ve found the opposite true in my experience. I continued going through the motions long after my testimony went…

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But every human experience is internal, unless shared in language

Yep…and even then given we may think about language differently, hard sometimes to tell how much is shared…though it can be fun trying, lol

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That makes sense. For me, at church I was taught that you fall away or lose testimony because you aren’t reading praying attending etc. I’ve found the opposite true in my experience. I continued going through the motions long after my testimony went…

Do you think now you were still hoping or was it just so engrained it didn’t feel natural not to do it?  Or something else (if you don’t want to answer, no problem, I am just curious and poking my nose everywhere like usual).

Edited February 19, 2024 by Calm