articulett - if you were really listening to me, you wouldn't have pulled the sexist "women can't get to heaven without a man" card just now after I already corrected it... Elind - If you were really listening to me, you'd already know what I expected to hear... Diogenes - It wasn't satan - I've had experiences with him too and it certainly wasn't him.
Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism
- Thread starter prewitt81
- Start date
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
He doesn't believe in god... he believes in another source of divine wisdom... a source that brainwashed people to believe in your god and jesus... I'm just saying, every religion has its stories about why other religions and signs are false and their is true.
You've seen speaking in tongues being counterfeited by Satan??! Wow. I'm sure I could see the exact same thing and come to a totally different conclusion as to who or what was the cause of the "counterfeit". When you were an "atheist" did you believe in Satan? Is Satan invisible like god and tries to trick people into thinking he's "god" or the "holy spirit"? You don't believe in a pitchfork cloven hoofed Satan do you? So Satan is trying to garner souls in this universe that god created in it's entirety--satan and all?
Wouldn't an omniscient benevolent omnipotent god know about this outcome in advance and could have prevented it or changed it or just not created Satan in the first place? I just could never make sense of any religion and I suspect that others don't either... they just don't ask themselves such questions. They are fine not knowing what "god knows" just as long as they "know" there is a god (their god).
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Well, they do have to be married... if not here then in the afterlife... and probably plurally... per Mormon doctrine. And it's the guy who calls her name so she can go to the other side. I think we really ARE listening to you-- or trying to... I think you aren't hearing what we say... except for when we call your "truth" into question. You make a lot of statements that are beliefs but you make them as though they are truths. That's a little freaky, that's all.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Well, it doesn't seem like you are hearing anyone. You seem to think people are saying that faith can't lead to truth... but we're just asking you to prove it can. You can't. And then you make generalizations about us and you called me offensive... but I'm not the one claiming to, not only know that there is a god, but claiming that he gave me "special divine knowledge". That would be you who is doing that. I think that might be more offensive to some people than pointing out that your knowingness is objectively indistinguishable from the known ways people fool themselves. I'm not pulling sexist cards. I'm just pointing out that iff by some wild stretch of the imagination your belief isn't true, you are doing a disservice to women by claiming it is while enhancing your own power, authority, and ego. That would be an objective fact.
Objectively, your claims and truth and god and satan are indistinguishable in regards to veracity as Scientology claims or Speaking in Tongue claims. Yes, they have a different method for affirming "truth"-- but none of you have a method that is shown to actually lead to truth-- the kind that is the same for evey one no matter what they believe. No matter how you slice it-- satan is a belief-- not an established fact... so are the golden plates and Joseph Smiths supposed revelations... and Jesus himself. Religionists seem to confuse facts with beliefs that "feel true to them". That's problematic from a skeptical perspective.
Oh, and we don't really believe in anything to convert you to... we're just stymied by all these people claiming to have assorted truths on such flimsy, bizarre grounds. These people know that humans can be fooled-- but somehow they feel THEY are immune to having been fooled. It's curious from a skeptical perspective... aren't you curious as to how Tom Cruise is so sure... aren't you curious if his success might be due to Scientology? If it was, does this make any of it true? And how curious to me that they proffer this stuff (in all manner) at a skeptics forum and then get offended when skeptics do as skeptics do and ask for evidence.
I'm not criticizing your religion--I'm just saying I see no reason to think it has any truth. Whether we agree or disagree has no bearing or not as to whether any of your beliefs are true. If I find another believer who claims to know and have witnessed that Mormon "inner knowingness" is a sign of Satan does that make it true? How can your knowingness of speaking-in-tongues satan be more likely to be true than the claims that Mormonism is a cult?
Mormons do say that if you hear the word and reject it, you don't get to go to the highest heaven... that was a bit disconcerting for this girl raised Catholic who didn't know there were stratas of heaven (sure there was limbo and purgatory... but not this polygamous other planet thing and levels of ecstasy versus outer darkness)-- that's weird... belief in Satan is weird and manipulative too--especially since we now understand many things once attributed to satan and other demonic forces. You have to be inculcated to believe this stuff and not see it as weird and creepy and manipulative.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
diogenes - Yes, I'm very special.
all - Let's all back off for a minute and let me propose something and get your feedback on it.
I propose that it is possible for a person to experience something that is outside themselves, know that they experienced it for certain - enough to be able to say "I know", and not be able to prove it to anyone or reproduce it and that it would still be valid for them to say "I know".
One example would be if one of us were at location X yesterday. Today I say, "I know I was at location X yesterday." For some reason, you doubt me and say, "You can't say you know that unless you can prove it." Of course, I can't prove it, but that doesn't change the fact that I was there and I know it for a fact. You can't validate or reproduce my evidence. At this point, I can't either - I have only the memory of my experience.
I'm saying that I know God exists because of experiences I've had in the past that I cannot prove to you. You can't validate or reproduce my evidence. At this point, I can't either - I have only the memory of my experience.
At this point, it's ok for me to say I know I was at location X yesterday.
You are all saying that one of the main reasons you doubt me is because other people are saying something that conflicts with what I am saying. I have said that I have received specific witnesses from God about the following things:
1. God exists
2. Christ is the Son of God
3. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God
4. The Book of Mormon is the word of God
Yes, people can be deceived by other people and by their general feelings - I have been. I know how that works. However, I'm asking for examples where people have gone through the same process that I explained and who received conflicting information. Tom Cruise didn't. The Muslim that was linked to didn't. The person speaking in tongues didn't.
Because of this, I think that your conflicts are invented. I'm doing something different than the people you've cited so I would expect that we could get different results. Some people just go to the church their parents did and disagree with me because of what other people in their church have taught them. That's not a true conflict - it's me claiming to have received knowledge directly from God vs. someone who trusts their pastor. Some people go to the church they feel best at or like the best and disagree with me because of what other people in their church have told them. That's not a true conflict either. Some people are Jehovah's Witnesses and have had good feelings as they have gone around preaching the gospel as they see it. This is also not a specific conflict with what I have received. Again, we may find a specific example where someone has studied, prayed, and received an answer that Catholicism is the only true church, but until we find that specific case, we don't have conflicts yet.
Is this valid? If not, what specifically is not valid about it and maybe we can make progress this way. I'm trying to find some common ground here and put myself in your shoes and I hope you all can do the same so we can understand each other better.
all - Let's all back off for a minute and let me propose something and get your feedback on it.
I propose that it is possible for a person to experience something that is outside themselves, know that they experienced it for certain - enough to be able to say "I know", and not be able to prove it to anyone or reproduce it and that it would still be valid for them to say "I know".
One example would be if one of us were at location X yesterday. Today I say, "I know I was at location X yesterday." For some reason, you doubt me and say, "You can't say you know that unless you can prove it." Of course, I can't prove it, but that doesn't change the fact that I was there and I know it for a fact. You can't validate or reproduce my evidence. At this point, I can't either - I have only the memory of my experience.
I'm saying that I know God exists because of experiences I've had in the past that I cannot prove to you. You can't validate or reproduce my evidence. At this point, I can't either - I have only the memory of my experience.
At this point, it's ok for me to say I know I was at location X yesterday.
You are all saying that one of the main reasons you doubt me is because other people are saying something that conflicts with what I am saying. I have said that I have received specific witnesses from God about the following things:
1. God exists
2. Christ is the Son of God
3. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God
4. The Book of Mormon is the word of God
Yes, people can be deceived by other people and by their general feelings - I have been. I know how that works. However, I'm asking for examples where people have gone through the same process that I explained and who received conflicting information. Tom Cruise didn't. The Muslim that was linked to didn't. The person speaking in tongues didn't.
Because of this, I think that your conflicts are invented. I'm doing something different than the people you've cited so I would expect that we could get different results. Some people just go to the church their parents did and disagree with me because of what other people in their church have taught them. That's not a true conflict - it's me claiming to have received knowledge directly from God vs. someone who trusts their pastor. Some people go to the church they feel best at or like the best and disagree with me because of what other people in their church have told them. That's not a true conflict either. Some people are Jehovah's Witnesses and have had good feelings as they have gone around preaching the gospel as they see it. This is also not a specific conflict with what I have received. Again, we may find a specific example where someone has studied, prayed, and received an answer that Catholicism is the only true church, but until we find that specific case, we don't have conflicts yet.
Is this valid? If not, what specifically is not valid about it and maybe we can make progress this way. I'm trying to find some common ground here and put myself in your shoes and I hope you all can do the same so we can understand each other better.
Last edited:
Elind
Philosopher
Over analyzing I think. The simple answer is that such "belief" is self validating. You may expect to get one answer, but then hear another which surprises you. There is no contradiction there. The new answer becomes the new truth. Previously you were wrong, or god has changed the rules for unknown reasons.
There are many, millions according to some, who believe they have been abducted and experimented on by aliens, and returned with vivid memories and an ABSOLUTE certainty that this happened.
Some people say that this proves aliens exist because millions can't be so delusional. Others say, similarly, that God exists because billions can't be so delusional.
There is something about the human mind that makes such "experiences" utterly real. We understand that you think so too. Some people can eventually come to a different conclusion, but probably most won't.
In your case in particular, there is the additional issue of belonging to a group that understands you, and a culture that you are comfortable with. It is difficult to leave such environments for anyone, and perhaps the doubts, if there are any, are not worth the cost and so they are relegated to something no longer considered.
One can train oneself to avoid thoughts or patterns of thoughts that are painful. Your closeness to a god that you can hear and that holds your hand is not something you want to give up.
Your world and ours differ internally. What else is there to say?
There are many, millions according to some, who believe they have been abducted and experimented on by aliens, and returned with vivid memories and an ABSOLUTE certainty that this happened.
Some people say that this proves aliens exist because millions can't be so delusional. Others say, similarly, that God exists because billions can't be so delusional.
There is something about the human mind that makes such "experiences" utterly real. We understand that you think so too. Some people can eventually come to a different conclusion, but probably most won't.
In your case in particular, there is the additional issue of belonging to a group that understands you, and a culture that you are comfortable with. It is difficult to leave such environments for anyone, and perhaps the doubts, if there are any, are not worth the cost and so they are relegated to something no longer considered.
One can train oneself to avoid thoughts or patterns of thoughts that are painful. Your closeness to a god that you can hear and that holds your hand is not something you want to give up.
Your world and ours differ internally. What else is there to say?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
You will always have an out, because the examples will not match ' exactly ' ..
When we say there are millions of examples, down through history, of people who have truly believed they have received revelations from God that conflict with the ' truth ' you received from god, you know full well what we are talking about.
For you to deny it is deceitful, and a revelation of your character that confirms what we are alluding to..
P.S.
The 2nd paragraph of the introduction to The Book Of Mormon, blows you out of the water, because it is obviously nonsense.
Last edited:
Elind - OK. I think we at least understand each other. I appreciate your comments.
Diogenes - OK. I was just asking for some specific examples rather than "surely there are millions all over the place, but I can't find any just now." I don't think I'm being deceitful to ask for testimony that would back up your assertions. Is the paragraph you speak of this one:
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
Which part of it "blows me out of the water" and "is obviously nonsense?" I want to understand you better.
Diogenes - OK. I was just asking for some specific examples rather than "surely there are millions all over the place, but I can't find any just now." I don't think I'm being deceitful to ask for testimony that would back up your assertions. Is the paragraph you speak of this one:
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.
Which part of it "blows me out of the water" and "is obviously nonsense?" I want to understand you better.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
If you say you were somewhere and you were... the fact is the same even if you can't prove it. However physics is altered because you were there, is the same... if you left DNA, it's there. If a sattlelite photo caught you on camera, it will show you there... See... so the facts are the same for everybody. Yes, people can know things that they cannot prove... but if it's factual knowledge reality will reflect that truth. You are claiming to know things that have not been proven to be a part of reality in any way--but have played an active role in eons of peoples' imaginations over the years--a type of meme that people tend to believe just as strongly... but the beliefs are not the same although the strength of belief and claims of knowingness are the same. The facts and reality are the same. But the details of the beliefs are very different... hence they are BELIEFS-- not distinguishable from delusions, opinions, preferences, mottos, myths, and all other things that fit that category. They are subjective and different for everybody.
Facts are the same for everybody whether you can prove them or not. And when choosing to invest in a belief-- the ones that have the most objective evidence and support the known physical laws of the universe as we understand them--are the ones rational people choose if not brainwashed. Sure satan could make it look like someone committed a crime they didn't commit-- but until evidence shows that satan exists and that he can frame people for crimes-- we will go with actual, measurable evidence. The same goes for all claims of invisible, immeasurable people or forces and claims.
You believe a lot of things on faith-- you have subjective proof of these "truths", but they are indistinguishable from the "truths" of schizophrenics and deceived people. They are objectively indistinguishable. So a rational person will rightly conclude that they can be relegated to the same category until or unless there is some evidence somewhere that people can know "truths" via feelings, prayers, or faith. There just isn't any... though people have been claiming this crap for eons just as self righteously and sure as themselves as you. What's wrong with demanding objective measurable evidence before believing crazy things? You would demand such evidence if you were falsely accused of a crime... and yet when it comes to your entire life you swallow the story you were indoctrinated with and the very method it recommends for verifying it's true.
Facts are the same for everybody whether you can prove them or not. And when choosing to invest in a belief-- the ones that have the most objective evidence and support the known physical laws of the universe as we understand them--are the ones rational people choose if not brainwashed. Sure satan could make it look like someone committed a crime they didn't commit-- but until evidence shows that satan exists and that he can frame people for crimes-- we will go with actual, measurable evidence. The same goes for all claims of invisible, immeasurable people or forces and claims.
You believe a lot of things on faith-- you have subjective proof of these "truths", but they are indistinguishable from the "truths" of schizophrenics and deceived people. They are objectively indistinguishable. So a rational person will rightly conclude that they can be relegated to the same category until or unless there is some evidence somewhere that people can know "truths" via feelings, prayers, or faith. There just isn't any... though people have been claiming this crap for eons just as self righteously and sure as themselves as you. What's wrong with demanding objective measurable evidence before believing crazy things? You would demand such evidence if you were falsely accused of a crime... and yet when it comes to your entire life you swallow the story you were indoctrinated with and the very method it recommends for verifying it's true.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
The whole paragraph is obviously nonsense, but the last sentence pretty much caps it.
No, I won't waste any time defending my statement.
I'll tell you what though, show that the golden plates exist, and I will profusely apologize for dismissing the whole paragraph out of hand.
Then we can move on to the two great nations that came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. .
Diogenes - Is being agnostic with a lack of physical evidence an option for you?
There are 11 witnesses in addition to Joseph Smith who saw and handled the plates. Their testimonies are right next to the introduction you spoke of:
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon..." - Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it." - Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith
There are 11 witnesses in addition to Joseph Smith who saw and handled the plates. Their testimonies are right next to the introduction you spoke of:
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon..." - Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it." - Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
In this case no.. Your witnesses are hardly objective.
I think the plates are a good place to start .
I really don't see how we can discuss what is written on them, until they are shown to exist ..
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,666
Well that's unfortunate. I think it's a pretty big part to why you hold to your belief so strongly. My guess would be you became depressed from no longer feeling special. That you no longer are part of some greater plan or purpose. That the world without a god and religion is boring, unexciting, and depressing. There is no mystical eperience or magic and as such you became depressed. Also it was probably hard because so many of your friends and family has those same religious beliefs that you came to reject. The thing is that the world is still amazingly beautiful without a God. You just have to get past trying to see the beauty as from God, and start seeing the beauty and 'magic' of the world on its own.
The person in contact had some evidence to support her. Despite falling through the ring in about 10 seconds, the video recorded 11 hours of static. Where is your physical evidence to support your belief? Not only that but in that movie they could rebuild it and send someone else through to see if they experience the same thing. This is not the case with your experiences.
As for your frustration. I understand it, as I said in the PM's I sent you. And as I also said, I've been trying to take these discussions in different directions rather keep saying the same thing over and over even knowing its only making things worse, not better.
"Those first 300 bites of dirt weren't very good. Maybe the next one will be better." - Strongbad
Maybe I'll make another thread sometime if I get around to reading up on and preparing some logical arguments for why there is no God.
Last edited:
Diogenes - Sorry, no physical evidence unless you count the Book of Mormon itself that is claimed to have been translated from the plates.
The Animus - You guessed wrong about my six years.
The point of the "Contact" anology was to express my frustration. It wasn't a perfect analogy. I did share some physical evidence when I talked about the experience on my mission.
The Animus - You guessed wrong about my six years.
The point of the "Contact" anology was to express my frustration. It wasn't a perfect analogy. I did share some physical evidence when I talked about the experience on my mission.Elind
Philosopher
Oops. You better take that back. I think you realize why by now.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I think eyewitness testimony has been shown to be horribly unreliable as has memory... Plus, how are we supposed to believe these plates magically defied physics and floated to the sky and no scientific person witnessed this event? Why no drawings of the plates.... no scrapings of them like people did of tombstones? A seeing stone? A hat? Secrecy during the translation process. What for? Why buried golden plates? I mean, god is omnipotent... isn't this a wee bit lame? And when the first "translations" are thrown out, why not poof up some new ones? (And he could have mentioned germ theory and DNA--just to be benevolent and more impressive-- and not so myth-ish sounding.)
Hundreds of people witness Lance Burton make a car levitate and fly every night. Lots of people have seen Randi's protege "carlos" do astounding things that must be real and must be messages from beyond-- the people are moved and cry with the stuff he just seems to know...
I don't believe in floating plates or seeing stones and DNA shows pretty conclusively that native Americans descended from Asians after ariving across the Bearing Straight-- not Middle Easterners... I understand DNA-- I don't see how it's possible to see the evidence and not understand just how devastating it is-- but I guess it could be that old trickster, Satan (the eternal scapegoat when facts don't match beliefs... followed by "science is a faith too")
Hey... but what a clever guy that Joseph Smith was-- he got to have sex with other guys' wives on authority from god and make tons of offspring he could indoctrinate from birth to see him as a prophet-- whether he believed it or not, it ended up being a good way to spread gullible genes and one tenacious meme while elevating oneself for generations forward.
Sure it COULD be true... all religions could be the "truth"-- but so far, if there IS a true one (which I doubt)-- this one just doesn't seem to be a top contender from an objective point of view. It's too easy to explain it's "claims" and adherants via more prosaic methods. It has a lot of good tricks for encouraging "testimony" and meme-gene generating.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Then I have no reason to believe that anyone besides Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon.
But let's assume Joseph actually was given the information on some golden plates..
Right away we run into problems..
I have bolded a few things that must be explained before there is any point in reading further..
Of course, if God decided to assure me personally that all these things were true, regardless of how ridiculous they appear on the surface , then I would have to reconsider..
But as I understand it, you have to believe before God will speak to you.
So it would seem to be a lose lose situation...
P.S.
Why do you suppose Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English in the style of the King James bible ?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
You have to also read the book of Mormon and pray to know whether it's true or not...