LDS II: The Mormons

[Marcus]

Yes, the "pet Mormon" I was joking about is my wife.

But isn't how one feels a large part of everyone's life? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10353877&postcount=2066

Yes it is. My scorn for religion is tempered by the knowledge that there is indeed some good done in the name of religion. Many people especially gain comfort from the fear of dying by indulging in an afterlife fantasy. Whether that fantasy involves eternal life in heaven or owning ones own planet makes no difference to me.

The Mormons I've met have all been nice people, I'm sure your wife is the same way. I've never once offended such a person by offering my opinion on the mental status of people who believe in such supernatural nonsense. Of course some people are able to enjoy some of the things religion offers, the camaraderie, the support, the friends, without actually believing the teachings.

 

[Giordano]

There are at least 3 kinds of truth and nothing like the truth. There is natural science, math/logic and social/emotional truth. They are not the same and they can't be brought together coherently as far as I can tell. The moment someone argues for the truth, there is a possibility that she/he thinks that is only one kind of truth

This leaves me very confused. Perhaps you can give me an example of a mathematical/logic truth that is not also a natural science truth? On this point, in particular, I do not understand your position and an example might help me.

But although in my mind a natural science truth and a social/emotional truth are necessarily the same, at least I think I may begin to understand what you are claiming to believe here. However, I am nonetheless uncertain as to the nature of your claim, even separate from my view of its accuracy. Could you give me an example of this too to help my understanding?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

This leaves me very confused. Perhaps you can give me an example of a mathematical/logic truth that is not also a natural science truth? On this point, in particular, I do not understand your position and an example might help me.

But although in my mind a natural science truth and a social/emotional truth are necessarily the same, at least I think I may begin to understand what you are claiming to believe here. However, I am nonetheless uncertain as to the nature of your claim, even separate from my view of its accuracy. Could you give me an example of this too to help my understanding?

Go for epistemology within empiricism:

The moon is made of dust and rock.
2 plus 2 is 4.
I am a human with rights.

What make these 3 claims true are not the same kind of truth.

 

[bruto]

I agree with the highlighted part completely. It's why I could never be religious, because it seems every religion has to reach that point when it tells people to stop thinking, because it demands they believe in objective things that aren't true, like prayer works, a god actually exists, etc.

But I'm failing to understand what tsig's talking about, when he says the search for truth apparently prohibits all the other emotional or uplifting parts of life, like feeling good, socializing, being encouraged to be a better person, all discarded in a grim search for truth. It seems like the most horrible cliche of the sour, miserable atheist or skeptic, who feels no sense of wonder or joy, but focusses entirely on the mistakes of himself and others on the way to TRVTH.

Maybe someone can explain it to me in little words.

Just occurred to me, is it because I think tsig means never when we both mean sometimes? In other words, when he sarcastically says, "We toss aside facts and reason and just exist in a soft, feel-good fog?" I think he means we should never do that and argue that a soft feel-good fog is for watching sunrises and reading good poetry and should not be eliminated from life. But he actually means it's okay to sometimes do that, just not when specifically searching for truth, so in fact we agree?

I suspect you more agree than disagree here, but I could be wrong. Of course I may be wrong about a lot of things, including life itself. I have always preferred the blunt truth and always found it pretty easy to be feel good in the midst of it. Probably a character flaw. The real world is complicated and mysterious and dirty around the edges but it's the world I like.

 

[skyrider44]

If we do that enough we'll all get to be gods of our own planets someday.

Pulling the cabal's strings is richly satisfying. Here, Myriad obligingly provides a demonstration of choreographed lockstep.

 

[Giordano]

Go for epistemology within empiricism:

The moon is made of dust and rock.
2 plus 2 is 4.
I am a human with rights.

What make these 3 claims true are not the same kind of truth.

But why do you think that the second statement (2 plus 2 equals four) is a mathematical truth, but not also a natural science truth? Do you think that math is not part of natural science, or that the two would yield different results/truths? Again, I find I do not understand this reasoning at all. Two plus 2 = 4 is exactly the same kind of truth to me in both fields of endeavor, and I don't get why you separate them at all.

Yes, you gave an example in # 3 that I begin to understand why you you consider this a third kind of truth. But in understanding it, I still disagree with it. I think the first part, that you are a human, certainly fits as being a truth of natural science (I assume for now that you are not an elaborate computer program posting here in disguise). But what rights you have I do not see as a "truth" but as a judgement that clearly differs in different countries and at different times in history. I believe that whether this statement is true depends on the rights and the circumstances. If you claim to have the right to steal money, then this is not true in most circumstances. If you claim to have the right to vote, this would not be true if you were a woman in my country in 1712. Right now, you have the right to vote for your government, but not if you were convicted of a felony.

Do you mean that as a human, you should have certain rights? I am much more likely to agree with this (depending on those rights) but there are others who clearly do not or have disagreed with me. If it is true is not (unfortunately) universally true. So perhaps we might call it a conditional truth (like 1 + x = 3. which is true for certain values of x) but it is not a universal truth (it depends on the rights you list and the environment you are in). It is subject to philosophy, and although I firmly believe it, I do not see it as a fact. It is true and an ideal for me but not for someone else. It is subjective, even if it is laudatory.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pulling the cabal's strings is richly satisfying. Here, Myriad obligingly provides a demonstration of choreographed lockstep.

Perhaps you should check your "650,000-word dictionary" for the meanings of "cabal", "choreographed", and "lockstep". You appear to be using them in an unlettered manner.

The idiosyncratic hanging period is intentional and defensible.

 

[RandFan]

Pulling the cabal's strings is richly satisfying. Here, Myriad obligingly provides a demonstration of choreographed lockstep.

Right. Says the Mormon who is told what is true and told to avoid anything that should take him away from the truth. Someone who is told to observe ritual, engage in talking to an invisible being and to regularly read selected religious texts.

We are the one's who are marching in lockstep?

 

[bruto]

Perhaps you should check your dictionary for the meanings of "cabal", "choreographed", and "lockstep". You appear to be using them in an unlettered manner.

All the world is dancing to those who must sit it out.

 

[Giordano]

Pulling the cabal's strings is richly satisfying. Here, Myriad obligingly provides a demonstration of choreographed lockstep.

You seem to suggest that most of the people here (and you are ignoring clear disagreements on several topics in some of these recent posts) have the same views on certain aspects of early American history. The best response if you disagree with them is to provide appropriate and believable evidence. So do you have any such evidence of domesticated horses, steel, or metal coinage in Pre-Columbian America yet?

 

[Giordano]

Right. Says the Mormon who is told what is true and told to avoid anything that should take him away from the truth. Someone who is told to observe ritual, engage in talking to an invisible being and to regularly read selected religious texts.

We are the one's who are marching in lockstep?

I am quoting this because I find it to be so true. This is one of many examples I've seen not only of "the pot calling the kettle black" but "the pot calling the butter dish black." By the way: I am using "blacK" as a color from soot, and not in the negative connotation that can be viewed as offensive. As mentioned before, I am a pale mutant form of my sunburn-resistant, darker ancestors who left Africa many, many thousands of years ago. In fact, I would guess that they were forced to leave due to their weird senses of humor.

 

[Slowvehicle]

srFF:

When, in your opinion, are the events that are to be supposed to comprise the exciting "american chapters" of the BoM to be supposed to have taken place?

When, in your opinion, are the events that are to be supposed to constitute þͤ Fludde to be supposed to have taken place?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am quoting this because I find it to be so true. This is one of many examples I've seen not only of "the pot calling the kettle black" but "the pot calling the butter dish black." By the way: I am using "blacK" as a color from soot, and not in the negative connotation that can be viewed as offensive. As mentioned before, I am a pale mutant form of my sunburn-resistant, darker ancestors who left Africa many, many thousands of years ago. In fact, I would guess that they were forced to leave due to their weird senses of humor.

Nommed, and sig-worthy. May I?

 

[RandFan]

I am quoting this because I find it to be so true. This is one of many examples I've seen not only of "the pot calling the kettle black" but "the pot calling the butter dish black." .

 

[Giordano]

Nommed, and sig-worthy. May I?

Thank you, and of course!

 

[Pup]

I suspect you more agree than disagree here, but I could be wrong. Of course I may be wrong about a lot of things, including life itself. I have always preferred the blunt truth and always found it pretty easy to be feel good in the midst of it. Probably a character flaw. The real world is complicated and mysterious and dirty around the edges but it's the world I like.

Yep. If one is allowed to search for truth and feel wonder and joy and awe and happiness too, or also feel those things at other times when one has decided literal truth doesn't matter, then I totally agree.

The only thing that really disappoints me about this world is the amount of cruelty humans can have toward other humans. Besides that, it's pretty good.

I'm a little afraid tsig is disallowing the latter part--deciding literal truth doesn't matter--and he would have me judge my wife truthfully at every moment, for example, not allowing me any warm fuzzies which would make me see her as illogically and wrongly beautiful, compared to an objective poll which would state the truth that she's only a four on a scale of ten perhaps. (I realize beauty can't be defined, but one could certainly define beauty as what a person scores on a poll of average people and claim that it's a more accurate representation of truth than a biased opinion.) Or see my example of enjoying the poem "High Flight" in post 2066 while deliberately choosing to ignore truth.

But of course, ironically, if one can say one is deliberately choosing to ignore truth, or is distoring truth with warm fuzzies, it means one is still aware of truth. That would fit tsig's insistence on constantly seeking the truth. It's just... aren't there room for emotions that override a constant grim reminder of truth? One thing I like about this world is that we have brains which can enjoy fantasy as well as reality.

 

[tsig]

Yep. If one is allowed to search for truth and feel wonder and joy and awe and happiness too, or also feel those things at other times when one has decided literal truth doesn't matter, then I totally agree.

The only thing that really disappoints me about this world is the amount of cruelty humans can have toward other humans. Besides that, it's pretty good.

I'm a little afraid tsig is disallowing the latter part--deciding literal truth doesn't matter--and he would have me judge my wife truthfully at every moment, for example, not allowing me any warm fuzzies which would make me see her as illogically and wrongly beautiful, compared to an objective poll which would state the truth that she's only a four on a scale of ten perhaps. (I realize beauty can't be defined, but one could certainly define beauty as what a person scores on a poll of average people and claim that it's a more accurate representation of truth than a biased opinion.) Or see my example of enjoying the poem "High Flight" in post 2066 while deliberately choosing to ignore truth.

But of course, ironically, if one can say one is deliberately choosing to ignore truth, or is distoring truth with warm fuzzies, it means one is still aware of truth. That would fit tsig's insistence on constantly seeking the truth. It's just... aren't there room for emotions that override a constant grim reminder of truth? One thing I like about this world is that we have brains which can enjoy fantasy as well as reality.

Enjoy your fantasy all you want just don't confuse it with reality nor expect me to agree with your fantasy.

You seem to be arguing that one cannot enjoy nature unless you believe in woo.

 

[JaysonR]

One thing that I just don't relate to is this...and I'm not picking on you specifically Pup...I have seen and heard this a lot in my life:

...that override a constant grim reminder of truth...

I just don't personally see life as sucking that much a**.
I couldn't relate to religion, primarily...because of this reason.

Heaven didn't make sense because I liked THIS...not that.
As a five year old kid, I wasn't sitting around thinking, "Well this life *********** blows man! What's after this because I'd like to look forward to that over this pile of ******"

Or any variant in softer version of it - go as implicit and passive in the notion as you want...I just don't relate to this idea.

I've been homeless, without food, shot at, almost died a few times, watched people I've known my entire life go bat-**** cray-cray Hitchcock stabby-stab right in front of me, I've witnessed an array of death and suffering around me in a myriad of manners (not that I'm saying I live like someone in Pakistan or Gaza; far from it).

I've never once thought, "****

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10

MAN! I need this world to stop sucking a**!"

Vacations from stress? Sure. That's what hot-tubs are for - chill the nerves.

But it's never been as so many have presented it to me from their perspective - that without their version of religion that they just don't see this life as capable of positive embrace; or in some cases, outright condemn the entire existence of this life as just fowl and disgusting.


Here's how I wish someone "Happy Birthday".
"HAPPY 'YAY! YOU GOT TO LIVE LIFE AS A HUMAN' DAY!"

Here's one of my personal philosophies on life:
"The greatest achievement any one human can accomplish is to wake up.
Everything beyond this is extra."

"Wake up" just means literal wake; not metaphorically referring to wisdom or something.
It basically means that if you wake up, then two things just happened: you're still alive, and you're human.

Both of those things combined are incredible; truly!

And lastly; this is my way of telling my dear 'ol Mom why I'm not religious:
"A truffle is outstanding because it is finite. If the truffle was never-ending, you'd get sick, throw up, or just simply become jaded to the experience.
Life is my truffle. I love it more because it is only just so once and only once for me."

I have also put it this way to LDS Missionaries in the past:
"If I die and do end up talking to any being or force that has any grand control; my immediate demand will be that I cease to exist immediately.
I don't want more even if there is more. I want this, just this, and nothing more."


So I can't relate to the want of escapism that is granted as a good of religion.
To me; I actually see that as a bad.

 

[Pup]

Enjoy your fantasy all you want just don't confuse it with reality nor expect me to agree with your fantasy.

You seem to be arguing that one cannot enjoy nature unless you believe in woo.

I don't confuse fantasy with reality, nor do I expect anyone else to agree with what I enjoy. No accounting for tastes--people are different. It sounds like I wouldn't want to be you, so I wouldn't expect that you'd want to be me.

I don't understand how you're defining woo. I've made my examples concrete, but they don't seem to get addressed specifically. Does believing my wife is beautiful when she's only average count as a woo believe in your world? If so, then I believe in woo. If not, then I don't.

But honestly, at this point, I don't really see the point in continuing this. The argument has gone on too long and become circular and is off-topic anyway.

I'll leave it with this example from a previous post, which no one has addressed yet but is what I keep picturing when people talk about demanding a constant insistence on truth with no time allowed for anything else. This is an excellent example of a hypothetical "grim reminder of truth" by a pleasureless atheist/skeptic. If it's not what you and others mean, I'm puzzled that no one's taken the time to deny it yet, despite me mentioning it in several posts. I would fight hard if anyone insisted I should remove this kind of pleasure from my life, even if it's defined as woo:

If someone says: "Have you read High Flight by John Magee?" I'm not going to argue that only a person suffering from synesthesia would consider laughter to be silver, and wind cannot actually shout, and that a person cannot safely be "in space" and put his hand out of an aircraft, let alone touch the face of a non-existent god, so the poem is clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason. I'm absolutely going to enjoy the magic of that feel-good fog, as the words wash over me.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
If someone says: "Have you read High Flight by John Magee?" I'm not going to argue that only a person suffering from synesthesia would consider laughter to be silver, and wind cannot actually shout, and that a person cannot safely be "in space" and put his hand out of an aircraft, let alone touch the face of a non-existent god, so the poem is clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason. I'm absolutely going to enjoy the magic of that feel-good fog, as the words wash over me.

...and yet, if "someone" says that I may not marry my partner because I have not "touched the face" of that metaphorical 'god'; or if "someone" calls me willfully ignorant because I do not accept the "history" of that beautifully poetic metaphor, and do not believe that during one flight, one pilot "made contact" with an actual being that qualifies as the 'god' I should be worshiping; or "someone" claims that I need to stop being stupid and admit that someday there may be "evidence" that men may become as supersonic flying airchines are now; or makes any of the other misplaced claims of the reality-averse superstitious; I will, in fact, point out that their claims are ungrounded in reality, and, while they may derive comfort form their sectarian superstitions, I can see there is no foundation for the beliefs they are trying to pass off on me.

I have said, over and over, that I do not care with what a believer self-soothes, in the fastness of their sanctuary.