Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 8, 2010 17:36:53 GMT -4
Reading your posts isn't my problem. It's you editing my words. I asked you to stop. Apparently, you are unwilling to. That's okay. No, I'll stop placing words in your quotes if you want me to. Love is commonly used because it proves the point that there are some things for which no truly objective evidence exists which do in fact exist and which are important. The intent is not to prove that the spirit exists by direct analogy. By the way, in LDS theology the soul is the spirit and body together, not a synonymn for spirit. The LDS goal is not to be "God's big buddy" or "get my own universe" it's "be joyful." Man exists so that he might have joy. Not necessarily in this lifetime, however. Short-term and ultimately insignificant suffering can be an acceptable price for eternal joy. I believe that I can't actually convince anyone to join my faith through an internet debate, and if I could I wouldn't want to anyway. People join my faith because they examine it, read its writings, ask God about it, and receive an answer from Him. Without the answer from Him any other reason for joining is not the right reason. Arguably. But they certainly don't have any written language, and there is no evidence that they discuss abstracts. That is showing compassion and communicating, not possessing a concept of morality. But is it an artistic expression for the spider, or just a way to get a meal? It would only be useless if there were no way of sorting the accurate messages from the inaccurate. Well, would you have accepted that as proof that God had in fact spoken to Moses? True, the ancient Israelites had the idea that the sky was a dome. That doesn't mean God didn't correct them on other, less trivial matters. Also, I do not feel the Bible is inerrant. I ask God myself. Because you asked God? I know, unfair. You assumed that I would have no good reason for accepting one prophet over the other when you wrote that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 8, 2010 17:41:16 GMT -4
See, here's the thing. I'm okay with discussing religion. I willingly participate in threads like this on internet forums, after all. I like to read up on interesting ideas; I have books on Hinduism, for instance, as well as Buddhism (okay, those are schoolbooks, but regardless). That doesn't mean that I want to be converted, nor do I find the myths to be convincing enough to embrace; just interesting. I am in the same situation with regards to those faiths (own books, find them interesting, not likely to be converted). Nope, still not going to bite. That issue tends to overwhelm any thread it's discussed on, and I prefer the conversation we're currently having.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 8, 2010 17:50:27 GMT -4
No, I'll stop placing words in your quotes if you want me to. Okay. Thank you. I may have overreacted, to be honest. Which isn't entirely true. Science has indeed shown changes in the brain when "love" is triggered (a picture of a loved one, for instance). So you know, flawed argument. But again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The feeling of an emotion is not an extraordinary claim; the existence of something like the soul is. Okay. Multiple afterlives! Hinduism, some sects of Buddhism, and all the Christian ones to pick and choose from! Fascinating! Oh, good, so you aren't out to convince me. Why, then, did you respond to my post? See, this is what happened: I posted my views, and said how I was tolerant of religions that didn't seek to impose on me (legally or personally). Then you responded with LSD viewpoints and how your viewpoints were right. Now, I'm alright with discussion, but you keep harking back to wanting to discuss tolerance. When I bring that up, you talk about "bait" -- but you trying to convince me about Mormonism isn't. I find this interesting. Now we're changing the goalposts? Okay. So, back to the "Children of God" thing. Why aren't all living things Children of God? Okay. What ways do we have? Read my edited post. I've edited several times to try to explain my view. Yeah, see, I think of science as a not-so-trivial thing. I guess that's why we really do diverge. Okay. Okay. What does God sound like? After Bruce Almighty, I always imagined him as having a Morgan Freeman voice. That's funny. I'm pretty sure several of them asked God too. I guess God is a liar. I know, unfair. You assumed that only you had a conduit to God. Not arrogant or egocentric at all. I don't think we're all that different, though. You believe in God because of the voice in your head. I don't have a voice in my head, so I'm not apt to believe it. I think that's fair enough.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 8, 2010 17:52:44 GMT -4
Nope, still not going to bite. That issue tends to overwhelm any thread it's discussed on, and I prefer the conversation we're currently having. Maybe next time you shouldn't ask me, then. It seems you don't like the answers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 8, 2010 18:22:22 GMT -4
Which isn't entirely true. Science has indeed shown changes in the brain when "love" is triggered (a picture of a loved one, for instance). So you know, flawed argument. Do visible changes in the brain really provide empirical evidence that love exists between the person and the loved one pictured? Say that I thought I might be in love with someone. If I got under the scanner while viewing a picture of her, would the scanner be able to tell me that "yes, you do love her"? The scanner is providing supporting evidence that might be viewed as saying "yes, love is real". It isn't directly proving that love is real. Well, it's a thread I started. If you post on it I think it's reasonable to assume you might want a response from me. Plus the chance to explain some of the finer points of LDS doctrine that are often mis-represented or which people have a mistaken impression of. Plus the entertainment value. No, when I mentioned "language" I had in mind written language and spoken language capable of communicating abstracts, I just didn't go into detail. The goalposts are right where they started. Because not all living things have the same potential to become like God, not all living things were created in God's image, and not all living things are His children in a spiritual sense. Your view seems to be that if God was really speaking to the ancient Israelites that He would have told them the Earth revolves around the Sun and other such items of information. Why do you think that would have been God's priority? I see the knowledge that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice-versa to be of trivial importance to the ancient Israelites (and of little practical value to most people today as well). I certainly do not see scientific knowledge as a whole as trivial. I have not heard His voice. Or they are liars. Or they were mistaken about what God actually told them. Or God didn't actually speak to them at all and they were mistaken about that. I can't tell you what others have experienced and identified as God. I do know what I experience when I receive answers from God. Therefore I am inclined to believe my own direct experience over second-hand accounts. That is also why I ask others to go to the same source, rather than believing my second-hand account. Absolutely not. I am in no way unique - anyone can receive answers from God.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 8, 2010 19:03:30 GMT -4
Do visible changes in the brain really provide empirical evidence that love exists between the person and the loved one pictured? If there are no other explanations, yes. It's not perfect currently, but it would give an idea. Sort of. Okay. I don't see "love" as anything more than the right mix of endorphins and attraction, personally. I don't think there's any "magical" about it, and we certainly do know that endorphins exist. But this has nothing to do with evidence of the soul. You yourself claimed that there was evidence of the soul, just nothing I, personally would accept. What evidence is there? It's been 15 pages. Most threads I post to kind of get away from the original poster in that time. Something you do constantly. I'm not interested, though. It's not the subject itself which doesn't interest me (though honestly, I don't find Mormonism in general all that interesting), but the simple fact that I do not trust you on the subject. Even I talked about the experiences of an ex-Mormon friend of mine (and yes, I have one), you would reject it as soon as he says something you wouldn't like to believe. So yeah, not interested. ARE YOU ENTERTAINED? *Gladiator pose* I see. How... interesting. I wonder how many more times you'll come up with something that was "in mind", but not in writing. . . "God's image". I always found that funny. If we were talking horses, we would think that God looks like a giant horse. The only way I know of to become like God is through science, not through religion. But that's funny, that's not what God imparted to us, was it? I dunno. Because maybe if they weren't forced to scrabble over bare resources, wasting what little potential they had on the land, they could actually sit down and think a little more about religion? Hell, the Old Ones provided us the Necronomicon, which has a little bit more than just spells; it tells how the Universe really is. Quite useful! And hell, you're totally neglecting the original point (again, something I notice from you). My original point was that people are consistently wrong about many things; "magic", astrology, ghosts, UFOs, etc. I have no reason to add religion on the "Likely to be Correct" list. You have, and that's okay, but if you're going to ask me to, then you need to provide a damn good reason, don't you think? Really? I thought orbital mechanics were quite useful to, say, satellites and the like. Huh, guess I'm wrong. So you just focus on one example? The whole point was that God was dishing out the goods, and instead of actually helping out the Israelites, he just told them who to stone and kill. Oh. Okay. So what body language did he use? Just like you might be. Yeap, sounds like you. No, wait, that sounds like you too! So you're still skeptical of their views -- even claiming that yes, they did hear something, but they're mistaken as to the source -- but your source is immutable and true. I stand in awe. No, seriously. That is incredible evidence. It's certainly extraordinary enough to make everything you claim true. You accept that they can be mistaken in what they hear, but you do not think that you can be mistaken. Arrogance again. Hubris. Then why do they so constantly get different answers than you? I hold the perspective that people like you are fooling yourselves into the "answers" you claim to have access to. What's to say I'm wrong?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 8, 2010 20:01:15 GMT -4
But this has nothing to do with evidence of the soul. You yourself claimed that there was evidence of the soul, just nothing I, personally would accept. What evidence is there? What would you accept? Now I'm a bit insulted. Are you suggesting I'm lying about LDS doctrine? It was primarily a stylistic choice. The line flowed better without encumbering it with asides like "(that is capable of discussing abstracts or written)". God does look like a human being, in LDS theology. But He did. Following God's method is the shortest way to become like God. It works. What is the difference between what God revealed and science? The fact that it was taught to us instead of discovered on our own? Priorities. Knowing what they need to do for the next life, which is eternal, is more important than giving them a benefit that will last each of them 70 years or so tops. Sure, but I'm not the person to provide you a good reason, God is. Most of us don't build satellites. None. I didn't see Him either. No, it's more of a case of my source is the only one I actually have access to. Theirs can only be second-hand to me at best. Given the choice I have to go with the one I can be more sure of.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 9, 2010 1:13:59 GMT -4
Let's see what you've got. I can't really say what evidence I would accept when the current amount of evidence seems to be "none at all", now can I? Just remember that I follow Carl Sagan's viewpoint that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; this is true of ghosts, UFOs, bigfoot, magick, and... the soul. I'm suggesting that even if you tell the truth, you close yourself to anything that runs contrary to what you think, and do indeed ignore the history of your doctrine, much like you ignore real scientific findings while using "science" to push your homophobic agenda, and ignoring what the science really says. You can be insulted all you want, I just don't think you argue in good faith. I'm not the only one that thinks so, either. There are others that don't trust you to know your own theology. Nor do I trust you to know your own church history. Okay. Well, it was a minor point anyways. Huh! Well, this leads back to an earlier position, doesn't it? I talked about how "small" your God is, and how egocentric your belief ultimately is. You said, "Ah! But yes! God didn't just create humans!" But yet he just looks like humans. So we get back to just how egocentric and arrogant religion sounds, don't we? It does indeed still seem like you think the Earth is the center of the Universe, if just "in spirit". It's kind of odd that we're so special, that we even look like this God guy, since we seem to be in the ass end of the Milky Way. Well, one is demonstrable through empirical evidence, is true even when you stop believing in it, and doesn't involve "Voices but not really voices" in our head. The other is a jumbled mess of a bunch of prophets all fighting, but still trying to convince me that THEY got it right, but not able to bring any objective facts to the table, and in fact bring nothing at all that doesn't just go away as soon as you stop believing in it. Hmmm. I think I know which I prefer. Who most likely doesn't exist, so I'm kind of at a loss, aren't I? If I wanted to argue about the existence of Santa, I can't really argue it out with jolly ol' St. Nick, now can I? Indeed. But Moses wasn't just "most of us", was he? He was the man that was getting everything from God. Just nothing, it seems, that couldn't be made up by himself. Not very convincing. (I notice you conspicuously ignore where I noted that this line of argument originated from. Interesting.) So you didn't see God, or hear Him. What was the nature of this conversation, then? It sounds more and more like you indeed have fooled yourself. But you said yourself that God could have talked to them, and they just got it wrong. Yet you're saying God talks to you, and you get it right, and now you can't get it wrong. You seriously don't get how unconvincing that is, do you? Oh well. Maybe someday you'll "get it", but from what I've seen, it's not likely. Like I said: "I hold the perspective that people like you are fooling yourselves into the "answers" you claim to have access to. What's to say I'm wrong?" In fact, as far as I'm concerned, I've won on this point. Totally and completely (I'm also, again, not the only one that thinks so). Oh, you'll argue and argue, kick and you'd NEVER admit it when I have a good point, but that's just something I'll have to live with. Right here, you've stated that other prophets can't be trusted, but yours can... even if they also "hear" God. As far as I'm concerned, you've all but admitted that you don't have jack. I'm interested to see your evidence for the soul, though.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 9, 2010 4:33:29 GMT -4
Since Jason is insistent on this topic, I ran this by the ex-Mormon friend of mine. This is what he said:
Friend: Yes, well that is a major weak point in Mormonism. Mormons believe that revelation continues to come to men, but they claim to have something of a monopoly. How do they make this claim? Well, basically they say "if you pray to God about the Book of Mormon, he'll tell you its true, that way you can know that Mormons are right"
Friend: The answer, they say, it "usually" something like a "burning in the bosom"
Friend: That gets into trouble, however, when you consider that such a feeling cannot be proven to be a message from anything except chemical receptors in the brain.
Friend: Stimulated by what is probably just a subconscious desire to believe in "magic"
I can see why Jason dances around this like he does. I wouldn't be too proud of the "burning in my bosom", myself.
I asked him about the bit of God looking like a human, and God creating alien life. He said:
Friend: If there is anything "official" in that regard, I'd say Mormons would believe intelligent aliens would look like humans.
Amazing what conclusions you reach when you reject the evolution of humans.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 9, 2010 21:08:11 GMT -4
I can see why Jason dances around this like he does. I wouldn't be too proud of the "burning in my bosom", myself. If I had a burning in my bosom, I'd check to see if my bra was on fire.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 9, 2010 21:55:53 GMT -4
If I felt a burning in my bosom, I'd buy heartburn medication.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 11, 2010 12:57:12 GMT -4
Let's see what you've got. I can't really say what evidence I would accept when the current amount of evidence seems to be "none at all", now can I? My evidence is anecdotal and personal, not laboratory studies or anything of that nature. That's why I asked what criteria you would accept. If you will reject them out of hand then I see no need to present them to be mocked. Ah, so I am being insulted. Do you have any reason to believe this is true of me, other than your personal distaste for religion? Try me. If you have a more authoritative source of information on LDS theology or history than myself then present their credentials. So far I have only heard vague mention of an ex-Mormon friend. I am a return missionary, a past Elder's Quorum teacher, and currently a Ward clerk. It's not a case of "we're special because we're the only ones who look like God in the universe." It's a case of "the universe is full of other worlds created and populated by God and full of intelligent life that also looks like Him, and we are one of many." Also, as I pointed out earlier, whether something sounds arrogant has no bearing on whether it is true. What can I say? You've obviously already made up your mind that religion is hokum and won't accept any reasonable argument to the contrary. You could if he did exist. And if God had given him detailed orbital mechanics would you believe that it had come from God, and not that the ancient Israelites had somehow stumbled on them? God's purpose in communicating with Moses was not to grant him advanced technology - it had a more eternal perspective. Sorry, there have been a lot of posts here. Where did it come from, and why is that significant? Spiritual. Direct communication from spirit to spirit, relaying intelligence without words. Conveying the experience is somewhat like explaining to someone who has never tasted salt what salt tastes like. In the Church we commonly use emotional terms, "burning in the bosom" and so forth, but they are at best vague approximations to the actual experience. Commence with the mocking if you wish, but it is a sacred experience to me. What is your only method for gaining information about the world around you? Your own personal experience, made up of the sensory input you remember from any given individual moment. All experience is ultimately subjective, in that you must filter everything you encounter through your perception, and you have no other sources of information except, possibly, the spiritual. So, if someone comes to me and says that they conclude that gravity doesn't exist, I must believe that they are in some way incorrect, because my own experience tells me otherwise. Likewise if someone comes to me and tells me that God doesn't exist, I must believe they are incorrect because my own experience tells me otherwise. If someone tells me that my dad behaved in a way completely inconsistant with his character as I know it, my own experience tells me it is unlikely that they are correct. If someone tells me that God acted in some way completely inconsistant with his character as I know it, my own experience tells me it is unlikely that they are correct. Not only is using your own experiences a reasonable way to judge whether others are correct, it is the only way on any matter. That is the fundamental reason why I say that people must have their own experiences with God and cannot rely on my own. My words might help, but cannot convince. If you want to know that God exists, you must seek Him out yourself. The scriptures and friends can help and provide some guidance, but the ultimate responsibility is with the individual. What is to say you are right? I know my prophets can be trusted because when I go to God asking if they are correct He provides confirmation. I know that other prophets or church leaders are not correct because I do not receive confirmation from God. Personal revelation is pretty much the most important principle of LDS theology, because it is foundational to everything else.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 11, 2010 22:26:35 GMT -4
OK I haven't posted in a long time but I thought I would join in on this one, probably less frequently than most due to time difference but now and then.
Lonewulf,
You seem to be asking for Jason's evidence of God purely so you can mock it. If you have already concluded that there is no God then there is nothing that he can say that will convince you otherwise.
I have chatted with Jason a few times over the years and occasionally clashed heads, but the one thing I have always respected is his consistent and intelligent responses. He argues his point well.
I have said it in the past that I am agnostic, I don't agree with much of the doctrine of the Mormons, or indeed what I consider “church rules” of any faith as opposed to the pure Christian message, which I believe is still a good guide on how to live your life.
Jason’s experiences are his own, and forgive me Jason if I am speaking out of turn or putting words in your mouth, but he also shares them with the rest of his church. That gives him, I believe credence for his faith. After all is that not what being in any sort of group is all about. To be among those that share the same beliefs or experiences as you. He does not share the same experience as an atheist or Muslim or Catholic. He can only go by what he himself has felt and if there are others who feel the same way then you have a church.
None of this can be scientifically tested but so what. Contrary to popular belief, science is not the be all and end all to the meaning of life, and by its very nature is constantly evolving and changing. What was scientific fact yesterday can be totally wrong tomorrow. Yes theories are testable and we often do get the results expected, however, that is based on the information we have at hand at the time. Now don’t get me wrong I am an aircraft engineer with a great love for maths and physics, but there are no absolutes.
I have a friend who is a staunch atheist; he believes whole heartedly that religion is the root of all the worlds’ evils. He honestly believes that if there was no religion the world would be a better place. He is not a passive atheist, he spends a lot of time trying to prove how bad religion is and why an atheistic world would be better. He has turned himself into a mini David Koresh of the atheist world with his own little followers. I think he has rocks in his head. It is not religion that is the cause of all the worlds problems but human nature. We have the ability to be bad as well as good and if there was no religion mankind would find something else to squabble about.
So there is no scientific proof for God. Why try to burst the bubble of those who believe there is a God. If their faith gives them comfort and peace where is the harm in that? I am not talking about the Institutional Churches or an entire nation using religion as a tool against another faith or neighbouring country. That angers me as much as the next guy. I am talking about the quiet belief of the little old lady who goes to church on Sunday with the faith that one day when she dies she will be reunited with her husband who died before her.
Jason can give you no evidence that will satisfy you, nor has he ever tried to push or sway his beliefs to anyone on this forum. He has always stated that it is his personal experience which gives him his beliefs. I am not sure what you are trying to get out of him but I don’t think you will get it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2010 1:03:33 GMT -4
Nonsense.
Jason is claiming to have evidence for God which parallels the evidence we present to HBs about Apollo. He directly compared the two. If he is going to make a claim like that, he had bloody well present evidence more convincing than "God talked to me." And yes, he has tried to convince people on this forum that he's right and everyone's wrong; it's in his very attitude. It's why I try to avoid reading his posts and wish like crazy that we had a proper ignore list here. I mean, seriously. If Jason is right, people who disagree with him must be wrong, because he actually said they are.
Now, I talk to Lonewulf about religion an awful lot. Bluntly, I agree that he can sometimes be insufferable on the subject. However, I do generally feel he's actually listening, at least most of the time. He thinks I'm wrong, and he's never said anything else, but he does generally accept that I have the right to disagree with him. That's because I don't reject science in the name of belief--evolution, anyone?--or try to take away the rights of others because their lives go against what I believe to be right.
You may not have seen it, but you know what? Jason does want to prevent certain people from having rights because he thinks what they do is a sin. He has double standards for behaviour. And you know, I'm not claiming to be perfect. But if Jason is going to claim that morals are objective and that they only derive from God (both of which he's said), and claim it without evidence, you are complaining about the wrong person.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2010 12:18:32 GMT -4
I am talking about the quiet belief of the little old lady who goes to church on Sunday with the faith that one day when she dies she will be reunited with her husband who died before her. I don't think anyone is out to convince that quiet old lady that her religious beliefs are wrong. As long as she keeps her beliefs to herself I don't really care what she believes. I suspect that if Jason had kept his religious beliefs to himself no one else here would discuss religion. If it seems like people are attacking Jason it's only after he told us that he knows his beliefs are correct. How does he know he is correct? Because God spoke to him, supposedly. If someone is going to claim to know that God exists then are we wrong to ask for proof? A lot of people have claimed to talk to God. You have to seriously question people like that. They are usually harmless like Jason but every so often we get someone like Jim Jones. Should we ask questions, or just assume the Kool-aid is safe?
|
|