Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[articulett]

So this is rconk's last response:

Wahoo! My thick head made progress.

Correct - being right doesn't prove that you knew.

Perhaps the key to this is that God's answer somehow gives a person evidence - certainly it is not objective evidence, but my experience leads me to believe that he did give me knowledge directly. I know you won't like that, but I am understanding where you're coming from better.

Do you think it is possible for God to give someone evidence directly from spirit to spirit via the Holy Ghost?

Why wouldn't randfan like that? I mean randfan would obviously roll his eyes at it... because lots of peoples' experiences truly make them believe they've had divine revelations or feelings or knowledge from god(s) or the ethers or the cosmic consciousness or allah or "all that is" or the holy spirit-- or whatever it is they give to this seeming message or feeling of "divine truth".

But he assumes spirits-- his own and the holy spirit... and he assumes an invisible god that communicates in a manner indistinguishable from voices in ones' head. We know for certain that people have been claiming the gift of prophesy, revelation, premonition, and "inner knowingness" for eons. We have no such knowledge that these things actually exist. We have lots of evidence that culture influences the names and details people give to such delusions or feelings and that people notice the hits and twist memories to fit with the beliefs they already have.

This always puzzles me-- how is it that each woo believer of every type can come here... and they don't really communicate or associate with each other-- because I think they recognize the others are "off" or fooling themselves or "out there"-- but why don't they ever wonder if they might also be equally deceived? Are they just so egotistical that they imagine they are super special? Why would they expect us to respect their belief and opinions about what they've interpreted their perceptions as? Would they give the kind of respect they expect to those who knew Allah wanted them to drive planes into buildings? To Tom Cruise and his inner knowingness (he's an Operating Thetan 7, I hear) -- To the Infallible Pope? The Dalai Llama? What about Sylvia Browne and her Novus Spiritus and their inner knowingness? Obviously, not everybody's claims of inner knowingness is correct? But how do we know that any of them are? What about the "Law of Attraction"? Lots of people read that and feel like the universe gave them a special secret--or maybe it was their guardian angel or the holy spirit. The woo aren't interested in these "truths" even though the evidence for these truths are on par with the evidence for theirs. They want you to be convinced by their feelings or your own feelings using their manipulation techniques--but they aren't out there exploring other such truths-- they know people fool themselves all the time on this. But first they would need to show us that faith and feelings can lead to truth. Because all the evidence seems to be contrary to that claim. None of our useful knowledge has come from faith or feelings or divine sources. Not germ theory, computer languages, medical advancements, fertility treatments, genetics, air travel, neurology, mental illness, the nature of the universe, logical fallacies, math-- none of it!

So why do they know that some people can truly believe something that is wrong-- but they are certain that they would never be fooled? What makes them so certain? Are they that brainwashed? Is it because we live in a culture that props up faith as a means of knowledge ala the Emperor's "new clothes"? Have they watched Randi's videos?

History is replete with humans who truly believed things that were wrong. People jumping in cages with lions thinking faith would save them. If under garments were special, why couldn't you do a double blind trial on them--?

They just all are "rain dancers" to me-- trying to get me to follow their dance steps to please the rain gods and prove they have the true rain dance when it finally rains. It's not so much that they pray to know "the truth"-- it's more like they believe they have "the truth" and pray for some "sign" of confirmation-- and then anything they can interpret as a sign becomes so. I mean, that is so obvious isn't it? Why isn't it obvious to them? And how does one fix that except to slowly dismantle this scary notion that faith can lead to truth. That's a recipe for people doing all sorts of crazy things to prove they have faith in all sorts of crazy things to win the best ever "happily ever after" in the magical afterlife that doesn't seem possible without a working brain.

Everything about our thoughts and memories and feelings can be seen or changed by altering the brain-- no hippocampus-- no new memories. And yet, we are supposed to believe the hijackers are having sex with virgins and Tom Cruise is a second Messiah and Mormon men are ruling their own planets with multiple wives after heavenly processing... it's just sooo.... soo ... much like Greek Mythology or bad scifi. Invisible overlords that subject people to some test with some weird rubric to see who believes it and spreads it to the most people with the least amount of evidence? Satan? How can people be grown ups and believe this stuff?

Also, the Mormon church has a big problem with masturbation... I always thought that was creepy-- young bishops interview young women about their masturbatory habits and chastize them accordingly-- and the boys. It's bizarre. Though I'm sure it helps ensure early marriage and lots of kids.

But that's a side issue.

 

[baron]

Again, briefly, since I have to go - quite a few things can. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to decide what to do with the knowledge and revelations that are given by God to the individual. Once the individual is quite clear that the source is indeed God, then the individual has a responsibility to the truth. You cannot deny the truth because it came from an unimpeachable source (hundreds of times, I might add). Repeated confirmations only serve to strengthen that what you know is actually true, not to mention family and friends' own similar and individual experiences.

That's where I am - having possession of the truth, and there is absolutely no good reason to turn my back on the truth.

I'm not clear what that means. Can you be more specific? Can you give examples of things that would cause you to stop believing?

 

[rcronk]

articulett - You're making some good points and I think anyone who deals with subjective information needs to hear what you are saying. It's important not to be deceived and not to be sloppy.

I have some questions for you:

1. You imply that if something doesn't make sense to you or it seems weird or you don't currently agree with it (like some Mormon doctrines you have brought up) does that mean you should reject it simply on that basis? Wasn't thinking that the world was more spherical than flat weird at one point in time? Wasn't it weird at one time to think that everything was made up of invisible atoms? Should those ideas have been rejected because they are uncomfortable or foreign sounding?

2. If we have several examples of people being deceived by subjective data, is it valid to dismiss all subjective data? Certainly we all deal with thoughts and emotions that are not provable through the five senses and are quite subjective. We make decisions based on what we think might happen in the future - which is not provable at all, yet we still have to deal with and sift through all of this subjective data. Why accept subjective data and act on it in some cases but reject it when it comes to God?

I have been deceived myself about religion, atheism, and many other subjective things. I know what it feels like. I understand how confusing it can be to sift through emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc. I can see how I thought certain feelings were from God when they really weren't. I am still deceived in certain things but I'm sorting through these things and throwing out the incorrect ones.

I have however experienced several times something that was very different from just emotions, feelings, or thoughts. It was like knowledge coming into me from outside of myself and it came in such a way that I knew it to be true and I knew it to be coming from God. If we are to be objective here, can't this be an alternative possibility to "brainwashing"? I understand that it's difficult to look at all of the times people have been deceived and still be able to assume that it's possible that people can receive knowledge from God. It could be that people are unwilling to accept that. We could have looked at science and all of its failures and just walked away from it altogether, but we didn't. Perhaps the only difference between us is that I believe that it's worth considering that this is a possibility of being true and others don't. That's not too big of a difference. I agree with much of what you say.

 

[articulett]

articulett - You're making some good points and I think anyone who deals with subjective information needs to hear what you are saying. It's important not to be deceived and not to be sloppy.

I have some questions for you:

1. You imply that if something doesn't make sense to you or it seems weird or you don't currently agree with it (like some Mormon doctrines you have brought up) does that mean you should reject it simply on that basis? Wasn't thinking that the world was more spherical than flat weird at one point in time? Wasn't it weird at one time to think that everything was made up of invisible atoms? Should those ideas have been rejected because they are uncomfortable or foreign sounding?.

The big difference is that the round earth has increasing and compelling evidence... and it wasn't from any divine source. It's more that people don't accept ideas until convincing evidence is in... or, rather a skeptic doesn't. I don't reject Mormonism for it's weirdness anymore than I reject scientology for it's weirdness. I reject it because there a tons of belief systems just like them that all have their special way to know it's true. I've believed such things... and it felt good to believe the stuff I believed--particularly the new agey kind of stuff-- but the bottom line is that faith and feelings are just a poor way to know the truth. The evidence IS in there. There is no evidence that there are divine truth, much less that anybody has them or that you can access them via faith and feelings. I have no interest in fooling myself. I know very well how the whole process works.

2. If we have several examples of people being deceived by subjective data, is it valid to dismiss all subjective data? Certainly we all deal with thoughts and emotions that are not provable through the five senses and are quite subjective. We make decisions based on what we think might happen in the future - which is not provable at all, yet we still have to deal with and sift through all of this subjective data. Why accept subjective data and act on it in some cases but reject it when it comes to God?.

Because I know humans have been inventing gods for eons, and I have a pretty good understanding why. Subjective data is only useful for understanding your own feelings... not objective reality. It's very prone to error and faith has no method of correcting those errors... science does. I accept subjective data for what it is-- not as a message from god... the leap you make is... inane... not warranted by the facts... lots of people have disemebodied spirits and entities that speak to them-- or they really believe so... but until there is evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain, it's best to go with what we know-- people confabulate and explain their feelings and experience through the language and culture in which they were raised. Had you been raised Muslim, you'd be just as sure that Muslim beliefs were correct.

I have been deceived myself about religion, atheism, and many other subjective things. I know what it feels like. I understand how confusing it can be to sift through emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc. I can see how I thought certain feelings were from God when they really weren't. I am still deceived in certain things but I'm sorting through these things and throwing out the incorrect ones..

Yes, but your criteria is prone to error--huge error-- it's all based on feeling... just as sincere people can and do get different results. You are no different than Tom Cruise and his Scientology... or Steven Segal and his Buddhism. What guy isn't sure that he has "the truth"--that he can't be fooled. Skeptic men are the only one's I know with that humility and courage. I'm not confused... I don't need to believe in an answer... I understand the world rather well, I think... and my view is supported by evidence. You just have no method except subjective assessment to determine what is true... and you already have bought into so much of it that you are clearly confirming the biases of your indoctrination. Satan? Excuse me, but that's just a little too teenage boy and Darth Vader for an adult. And this egotistical claim to know something while knowing that people fool themselves in the EXACT manner that you fool yourself all the time. What's with that? It's weirdly arrogant. You seem to exemplify how faith makes people believe they know something (the Hijackers, for example) despite not an iota of evidence for the claim! It's scary and unfixable and not amenable to reason. You haven't made a case for faith and feeling being a means of knowing truth. Sure, you can know your opinons and feelings about things... but they are the same as everyone elses in regards to reality. Your faith in Kolob is on par with hijackers sex filled paradise. It might be worth dying for if you are some guy certain it's true-- but, please. It's so... male centered and egotistical and just silly... so greek mythy or Star Wars or childlike.

[/QUOTE]

I have however experienced several times something that was very different from just emotions, feelings, or thoughts. It was like knowledge coming into me from outside of myself and it came in such a way that I knew it to be true and I knew it to be coming from God. If we are to be objective here, can't this be an alternative possibility to "brainwashing"? I understand that it's difficult to look at all of the times people have been deceived and still be able to assume that it's possible that people can receive knowledge from God. It could be that people are unwilling to accept that. We could have looked at science and all of its failures and just walked away from it altogether, but we didn't. Perhaps the only difference between us is that I believe that it's worth considering that this is a possibility of being true and others don't. That's not too big of a difference. I agree with much of what you say.[/QUOTE]

Nope. You already accepted major parts of it... and you presumed that there's a god who would cryptically let you know it was true via "signs" which YOU interpret... I've already done that... really cool experiences... I'm sure my signs trump your signs... but the premise is false. The signs are on par with the ideomoter affect.

Plus, you were dishonest... your whole pretense in coming here--and you don't even see the hypocrisy of telling randfan you know something through "rigorous honesty"--?!! Religous people do that all the time with nary a care... I'm guessing that they are so used to deceiving themselves that they lose sight of the line between actual measurable truth that is the same for everybody and everything else-- feelings, opinions, beliefs, delusions, confabulations, withful thinking, allegories, myths, etc. You only have the latter. And I think it has made you dishonest and unable to reason well. I think it's lucky you stumbled here to preach, but not for us-- for you-- to save you from this brain washing. What brainwashed person isn't as "certain" about their "inner knowingness" as you? And who cares what YOU "honestly believe" to be true? Didn't the hijackers honestly believe they'd get virgins? Can you prove they didn't. Their books says you will go to hell for worshiping a false prophet. You are just as certain that you'll go to Kolob and on to your own planet.

Don't you see that Tom Cruise as a Scientologist could say the exact same things with even dopier sounding enthusiasm and incredulity? What amazes me is that you guys must all think those other dudes have fooled themselves, but somehow you are better or smarter or your feelings are deeper or truer. But who doesn't think that? From an objective perspective you're just Tom Cruise or Alec Baldwin or some other person certain that the invisible creator of the universe is telling them special secrets.

Skeptics have been there and done that... we want evidence for our truths... and not the kind yu proffer. Feelings aren't evidence. And I can't imagine and all loving anything being so vague and sexist and petty and demanding. It makes no sense. It's perverse even.

 

[rcronk]

articulett - You are using an association fallacy. You are asserting that since there have been people who rely on subjective evidence and were wrong that everyone who relies on subjective evidence must also be wrong.

Not only do you resort to this fallacy, but then you turn this assertion into a fact and begin to base an avalanche of other assertions on it (since he is actually deceived (just like everyone else I mentioned), he's being arrogant in claiming to have had an experience of receiving truth, he's dishonest, hypocritical, brainwashed, just like a murdering terrorist, etc.). Is it possible that I actually received truth, know it, and am stating it plainly? You are asserting that I am deceived yet you have no evidence for such a claim other than association fallacy.

My pretense for coming here to this thread (the moderated thread, that is) was to have RandFan describe to me why he left the Mormon church so I could better understand where he's coming from and investigate the issues he brings to the table. That is what I am doing, so I don't understand your claim that I'm being dishonest.

ETA: You missed my point on the whole round earth thing. Back when it seemed strange that the earth was round, if people had walked away from the possibility just because it seemed strange and not normal, they would have been walking away from truth. "normal" and "non-strange" is not a prerequisite for truth.

 

[The_Animus]

You are using an association fallacy. You are asserting that since there have been people who rely on subjective evidence and were wrong that everyone who relies on subjective evidence must also be wrong.

You are clearly misunderstanding. Everyone who relies on subjective evidence is not wrong. You CAN BE right. But it is a dangerous thing to rely upon subjective evidence to determine what is true and what is not. It's foolish. Especially about whether there is a God and whether your church is the true church. As such I'm saying you should find another source of evidence besides subjective experience to very seriously support the idea that there is a God and the Mormon way is the right way.

How about we forget about which church is right and just focus on whether or not there is even a God. What evidence do you have that is not based on subjective experience to lead you to believe that there is a God?

 

[articulett]

articulett - You are using an association fallacy. You are asserting that since there have been people who rely on subjective evidence and were wrong that everyone who relies on subjective evidence must also be wrong..

No, you have the fallacy. If subjective evidence IS a way of knowing something, there is no way of determining whether that something is more likely to be true than other subjective evidence. There are tons of beliefs--but only one reality. The only thing any human has to distinguish subjective truth from objective truth is evidence. Otherwise, all feelings are in the same category when it comes to methods of knowing truth.

Not only do you resort to this fallacy, but then you turn this assertion into a fact and begin to base an avalanche of other assertions on it (since he is actually deceived (just like everyone else I mentioned), he's being arrogant in claiming to have had an experience of receiving truth, he's dishonest, hypocritical, brainwashed, just like a murdering terrorist, etc.). Is it possible that I actually received truth, know it, and am stating it plainly? You are asserting that I am deceived yet you have no evidence for such a claim other than association fallacy

Again... your blind spot. Sure you could have the Truth... so could Tom Cruise. Reincarnation could be true. But until there is evidence that consciousness can exist absent a brain, I have no interest in peoples feelings and opinions and subjective truths on the subject. Are you eager to try and become a Scientologist? A Moonie? A Buddhist. A Muslim? Why not? That's the same way I view your claims. You have already judged them as unlikely to be true-- and they and I feel similarly about Mormonism.

Sure, it's possible that you have divine truth... but it's equally "possible" that some other self proclaimed prophet does. It's much more probable that your prophet is just like all the prophets you find "wrong" or mistaken. If someone was gullible enough to look to feelings to find the truth-- to how much the other "believed" they had the truth... they would make an error every time the picked the wrong prophet or guru. And if any one is right...tons are wrong. Moreover, there's no evidence that any of them are right. You bought into this notion that you could know something by feeling it... but to me it's the same as someone saying they had a revelation about the right rain dance to please the rain gods and if only I'd try it, I'd see that it worked and know that they had divine truth.

See, Neither you nor anyone who believes they have the truth has a way of determining whether it is the truth... and clearly lots of people have "truths" that are wrong. To an outsider, you could be Tom Cruise saying the same thing about Scientology, "is it possible I have the truth?". Is it possible to you that Tom Cruise has the truth? Why would you expect someone to take your word over his if it's just an inner knowingness? That's what is arrogant.
Is it possible Sylvia Browne is in touch with the "holy spirit"? You haven't even made a case that there is a holy spirit... and you wouldn't believe in one if you had not been indoctrinated to do so.

My pretense for coming here to this thread (the moderated thread, that is) was to have RandFan describe to me why he left the Mormon church so I could better understand where he's coming from and investigate the issues he brings to the table. That is what I am doing, so I don't understand your claim that I'm being dishonest.

Not the thread... the forum. You came here under the pretense of reading books and seeing what we could find out from them. But you had read your book and determined it was true and your goal was to proselytize. Your goal wasn't to find out if other books could sway people similarly (they do and can)--your goal wasn't to really listen and exchange... you truly thought you had some special divine knowledge and you were going to "trick" people into discovering it for themselves. But, we already no about things like that--how and why you can feel it's true. Really--read about the ideomoter affect--do the pendulum. Your brain is a story teller. And you give us no reason for believing you over all the other woo and smarmy manipulative people or Tom Cruise or dewy eyed fundamentalists or ESP/reincarnation vibe believers. Your belief in yourself is not objective evidence for anyone-- not even good evidence for you. And you can't even see that you come across the same as zealots or proselytizers that you'd roll your eyes at--understand the tricks of--find it hard to take seriously. There is no evidence that can change your mind... just like there was no evidence to change the hijackers mind. And that makes faith scary as far as I"m concerned. It's NOT a good way to know anything, but it sure does make people feel special like they know some real good info.... it allso makes them feel morally superior while not doing anything particularly moral.

ETA: You missed my point on the whole round earth thing. Back when it seemed strange that the earth was round, if people had walked away from the possibility just because it seemed strange and not normal, they would have been walking away from truth. "normal" and "non-strange" is not a prerequisite for truth.

I didn't miss it--religious people always twist science to fit their religion when they can. The fact is, people can and did walk away... but the earth still staid round. The evidence never was "inner knowingness"-- the evidence was accumulated data that lead to further data-- the opposite of faith. There's lots of strange, but your method doesn't separate strange and delusional from strange but true. Science does. Evidence does. Faith can't. It automatically makes you biased and there are no double blind studies or anything at all to determine one from another. Feeling can't be the answer-- or no one would die for so many assorted religions--

And I could no more take the book of Mormon seriously than you could take Dianetics seriously or Greek Mythology-- and for the same exact reasons. No great truths came from faith or revelation... they all came from slow and meticulous gathering of data over time by mere mortals--humans who let the evidence guide the discovery as opposed to being told "the truth" and then setting on a journey to prove it to themselves.

Suppose Tom Cruise and John Travolta were saying very similar kind of stuff about Scientology to you. They could use similar arguments and everything. I know that you would not react in a way that you seem to expect us to act-- and though you won't say why-- we all know why... because in your head your woo is the true woo and that one is clearly false. But in a skeptics world, you are both equally likely to have "truth"-- and that makes you both likely to be deluded. You have your subjective truth to make it "real for you"-- but that does nothing for the unindoctrinated. You have nothing to distinguish your subjective truth from any other faith based "truth". Nothing. And yet you expect us to respect that nothing--even use it to fool ourselves as you have done... (or whatever it is you feel Tom Cruise is doing and has done.)

A million subjective truths-- but only one reality... one objective truth. And the only way to distinguish one from another is evidence. And it doesn't point in the direction of invisible entities and forces and tests from all loving invisible egomaniacs. I think it's more than obvious that gods are very much MAN made. Randi and Randfan show us how we fool ourselves...how they have been fooled-- you just try to fool us so you can continue to fool yourself. And you are transparent. As transparent as a Scientologist would be who was saying similar things to you.

 

[rcronk]

The Animus - Thanks for the simple, direct comments! I know that everyone who relies on subjective evidence is not wrong. articulett is trying to make a point over and over by listing all of the people who have been wrong in the past and in so doing is relying on association fallacy and I was just pointing that out.

It may be dangerous to rely on subjective evidence simply because of the chance of being self-deceived. I get it. It's also dangerous to drive to work, assuming that I'll not get in a wreck but will get a paycheck - something of which I have no evidence when I begin the journey. If it is possible for God to give someone subjective evidence and it is in fact true, then I don't see trusting that evidence as foolish but just a risk that is worth the payoff.

There are certainly objective "fruits" that can be tested to prove subjective evidence wrong. I think what JREF and Randi do is commendable - we need to expose those who are taking advantage of people by putting them to the test and debunking their claims. Unfortunately I don't know of any way to prove subjective evidence right, just ways to prove it wrong.

I think the only thing I can rely on is my own life and comparing that to what others have testified. As I have followed the commandments of God through His prophets, I have found that what they have said is true as I have seen the results of following those commandments. I think living it is the only way to find out. I was LDS, then atheist, then I investigated many religions, then I decided to try living LDS doctrines to find out if they actually do have the authority they claim to have. I could list a lot of experiences of people being healed (including lung cancer) and being taken care of as I have paid tithing, etc. but I don't think any of that would be conclusive here - it could all be explained away through coincidence, etc. I guess over a lifetime, if you live it long enough, the coincidences become statistically impossible and that could point to proof of the existence of God. Thoughts?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...... I guess over a lifetime, if you live it long enough, the coincidences become statistically impossible and that could point to proof of the existence of God. Thoughts?

To believe this would point to proof of the existence of God, would indicate a lack of understanding about coincidences and statistics .
Not to mention a lack of understanding of proof..

 

[rcronk]

articulett - OK - yes, subjective evidence is non-transferable. Agreed.

One strawman that keeps getting set up is that Mormonism contains all truth and nothing else can be true. I have explained this over and over and I'll do it again. There are truths in Buddhism, Vaishnava, Christianity in general, Mormonism, etc. Truths that even an atheist can agree with - like doing unto others as you would have them do unto you - at the very least, it makes sense to live by that law for a functional society. Anyone can have truth. So I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong and I'm right. There are Shaolin monks that know more truths than I do. I've met and talked to them (and they taught me some cool karate moves too). The only thing the LDS church claims is authority. Not only is it a strawman but it's a false dichotomy - either LDS is right or Dianetics is right - huh? Truth is truth and it has no owner or monopoly.

 

[rcronk]

Diogenes - Fair enough - though you may want to get more information about what I'm calling possible "coincidences" before you make such a comment. And I said that it points to proof, not that it is proof. I hope that's not the only thing you got out of my posts.

 

[articulett]

articulett - OK - yes, subjective evidence is non-transferable. Agreed.

One strawman that keeps getting set up is that Mormonism contains all truth and nothing else can be true. I have explained this over and over and I'll do it again. There are truths in Buddhism, Vaishnava, Christianity in general, Mormonism, etc. Truths that even an atheist can agree with - like doing unto others as you would have them do unto you - at the very least, it makes sense to live by that law for a functional society. Anyone can have truth. So I'm not saying that everyone else is wrong and I'm right. There are Shaolin monks that know more truths than I do. I've met and talked to them (and they taught me some cool karate moves too). The only thing the LDS church claims is authority. Not only is it a strawman but it's a false dichotomy - either LDS is right or Dianetics is right - huh? Truth is truth and it has no owner or monopoly.

You are confused as to what is a truth. Do unto others is a guideline... it evolved in many cultures and even in animals... basic game theory... reciprocity... we evolved to be that way with or without religion... mottos and tendencies aren't truths. A truth is a fact that would be absurd to deny-- something that is true even if no one believes (see round earth). For example, either consciousness can exist without a brain or it cannot. Either you are talking to such a consciousness when you pray or you are not. Either this entity interacts with the physical world, or it does not. Either someone can learn more about this entity or they can't. Either faith and feelings can bring actual factual knowledge or it can't. See? Either 2+2=4 or it doesn't. Either people can experience something when their brain is dead or they can't. Either people reincarnate or they don't. Either Xenu existed or he didn't. Either engrams exist or they don't. You take some little thing you can't explain (coincidences) and then explain it in amazing detail with so many assumptions that it's like extrapolating lights in the sky to little green men coming to inbreed with humans.

No, it's not that Mormon contains all truth or no truth... it's that the method it relies on to tell you that it's true is not shown to reveal truths. I can tell you to do a rain dance to please the rain gods... and when it rains I can say, "see, I told you they would like it..." or when you failed I could pray to the rain gods to keep you trying and to give you some inspiration... but that doesn't make the rain gods real or dances affect weather or me a prophet... even if everyone believed it did. It still doesn't. There is no evidence that faith and feeling can bring truths. Sure Scientologists can have some nuggets and Mormons can and Catholics and Muslims and Moonies-- but that doesn't mean they have "truths" or actual useful knowledge. Skeptics don't care about what people believe is true-- they want to know what is actually true.

You assume you have the truth, but you've completely blinded yourself to the possibility that Randfan could be right... he doesn't believe because he realized it was a delusion... and you would have no way to know that... no error correcting mechanism... just like all religions Faith isn't worth anything. It doesn't make people better or more knowledgeable. It's nothing that an all loving anybody would demand of people anymore than you would force it on your kids--along with their worshiping of you even though you decided to be invisible and indistinguishable from a voice in their head. You just presume so much... and you expect a sort of reverence for your "feelings" that you don't show to anyone else... you don't run around exploring Scientology and seeing if it might be true and wondering how Tom Cruise believes it so strongly while being so successful do you. And yet you expect us to do that for you. To care about your beliefs more than you care about anyone's...

The fallacy in thinking has nothing to do with the fact that one of these religions could be right-- it has to do with faith and feelings being a poor way to know which one that might be. It's not like you studied all religions and then chose the one that made the most sense... you've clearly been programmed since childhood... you make assumptions that only a very indoctrinated person could make. And I don't believe you were an atheist. Maybe you didn't have testimony-- but, in my experience, I could no more make myself believe in your god than I could make myself believe in Scientology or Santa Claus or rain dances. I recognize why and how people believe in these things and why these things have a very remote chance of being true. And the same goes for your beliefs. And once you tell someone that their "happily ever after" depends on them believing a certain way and that they will be shunned and must love sin if they don't believe-- then you've got a manipulative mind trick in place. You shouldn't have to be tricked into understanding the truth. Evidence is fine, isn't it?

But the thing that always bothered me about religion, that no guy ever answers is this-- how can you look at all the beliefs that have been wrong and remain convinced that you of millions just happened to be born into or stumble upon the RIGHT unbelievable story that you are supposed to believe without evidence? Why would you imagine that this invisible overlord blessed you with "Mormon truth" and not pre-witt and others? Isn't it a recipe for self delusion to tell you that if you pray to know whether something is true, god will come and show you it is? I think so. It makes some maybe assumptions about there being a god and about faith proving truths and so much more. And I know a lot on the subject. Moreover, I expect my experiences, reading, and education on science and neurology trump both you and Scot. But you never asked. Because you are so convinced that you have the truth and that we skeptics need you to give it to us. You have failed to consider the alternative that we might have something very valuable to teach you... randfan particularly. Forget that nonsense about people leaving belief systems because they love sin-- that is a lie. Forget the lies about atheist immorality-- it is not supported by the evidence. And just listen and do that rigorous honesty you claim to be so good at. If it's true, it should bear up to scrutiny; if it's not, you may wish to learn what you can verify and teach real verifiable truths to others. And if you can't bear to be wrong then a skeptic's forum probably isn't the place.

On the plus side, I don't think any former believer of any faith regrets letting go-- even if it was painful at first. And former believers make some of the best, most honest, most poignant skeptics.

 

[articulett]

Don't you in fact treat other beliefs with the same incredulity that we show yours? Aren't your beliefs predicated on the claim that there is a god and you can know him/her/it via faith and feelings? Can't you see how that is on par with me claiming to know the dance that pleases the rain gods along with testimony of all the time it worked?

 

[rcronk]

articulett - Why do you keep saying "consciousness without a brain?" Are you speaking of God?

Fair enough on what is a truth - I picked an incorrect example unless you looked at it as "the most efficient way to function in a society is to live by the golden rule" - which could then be a truth.

I have "run around exploring" other beliefs (even Scientology). Please stop incorrectly guessing about me.

I get your point about the rain gods. It makes sense and I get it, but extending that to everything that is faith based is an association fallacy. If something is actually true, then it doesn't apply.

I have learned a lot here so far. I appreciate everyone here working through these things with me. I think it really has helped me to be a better person and to think differently about things.

I am stuck in a difficult place though. I have received evidence that God exists, among other things, but I can't prove it to anyone else. It's interesting, because even if I were to see God with my own eyes, that evidence would honestly not be as strong as the evidence I received. I cannot deny it. I know you guys hate that, but there it is. I get your point of view, but I cannot walk away from what I know just because I can't prove it to others any more than I could walk away from my children because I can't prove to you that I love them - that's just subjective evidence, after all.

P.S. No, your disbelief in my belief is not based on evidence, just guilt by association fallacy. My disbelief is based on subjective evidence. They are different.

 

[blobru]

I have "run around exploring" other beliefs (even Scientology). Please stop incorrectly guessing about me.

Scientology, really!? Glad you went with Mormonism.

I am stuck in a difficult place though. I have received evidence that God exists, among other things, but I can't prove it to anyone else. It's interesting, because even if I were to see God with my own eyes, that evidence would honestly not be as strong as the evidence I received. I cannot deny it. I know you guys hate that, but there it is. I get your point of view, but I cannot walk away from what I know just because I can't prove it to others ...

As long as you're ok with other people without your experience not sharing your belief, I don't hate it at all. Nothing wrong with discussion; evangelism on the other hand...
I would just suggest the possiblity that your experience is unique to you, a unique combination of whatever caused it and how you perceive it, so don't sweat that you can't prove it to others. I can't "prove" I like french toast with a side of bacon, but I do!

 

[rcronk]

Honestly, I didn't go as deep on scientology as other belief systems.I also like french toast. Wanna start a religion?

 

[blobru]

Honestly, I didn't go as deep on scientology as other belief systems.I also like french toast. Wanna start a religion?

I am so looking forward to first communion:

"Panis sacer galli syrupo sancto"... or something like that, who knows; I'm gonna remember latin declensions while I'm wafting french toast? C'mon sinners, let's eat!!!

 

[The_Animus]

As I have followed the commandments of God through His prophets, I have found that what they have said is true as I have seen the results of following those commandments.

This has nothing to do with God. Commandments that the prophets made are simply moral tenants. Many people who are atheist follow the same tenants. I think to kill is wrong. I think stealing is wrong. I think adultery is wrong. But none of this is because God says so or because of a religion. It's because of my personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Someone elses life is their own and only they should be able to end it. This is why killing is wrong. I can practice these things in my life and come to find they are 'true' in that it seems these statements are the way things should be. It should be that people think killing is wrong. Again this has nothing to do with religion or God.

I could list a lot of experiences of people being healed (including lung cancer) and being taken care of as I have paid tithing, etc. but I don't think any of that would be conclusive here - it could all be explained away through coincidence, etc.

You could list experiences where you BELIEVE there was healing. But you must admit you do not know for sure that praying healed it rather than something else you are unaware of. Every single time someone makes the claim that they have healed someone or that praying made someone better they are NEVER EVER able to do it again when people are monitoring it. Why is this the case? Doesn't it seem odd that the only time God will listen to your prayer and heal someone is when it can't be proven? Which makes more sense? That faith healing really does work it but can never be proven. Or that it doesn't and that a person simply attributes someone getting better to their prayer when there is no evidence that this is the case.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Do you think that some people can cast spells, make things levitate with the power of their mind? Do you think that some people can read other peoples minds or make a candle flame grow by concentrating on it? I would assume you do not. And if I asked why you may point to the fact that while many many people will make the claim they can do this, or they have done it before, or they have seen someone else do it. They can NEVER ever do it in front of people who are skeptical to prove that they can. The reason for this is because they simply cannot do it and any previous experience in which something happened was probably due to wind or something else and they just chose to believe it was them using their mind powers. Why should faith healing be any different.

You've said before that most of your reason for believing in god, and the mormon church (though as I said I'd like to forget that for now and continue with just God), was from personal experiences with god. Would you be willing to present in as much detail as possible the strongest experience you had or the one that sticks out in your mind the most as having proved to you God's existance?

To everyone else - I don't know if this has been done or proposed in the past but maybe we should work on a sticky for this section which talks soley about God, as in no specific religion. This sticky would consist of one post outlining each individual reasoning for the existance of God and then providing logical reasoning as to how it is flawed. It would also contain logical reasoning for why there is no God such as the problem of evil. That way for all future posts concerning God in which someone presents a case for believing in god that is covered in that sticky, we can save ourselves some time and simply point them to that post or quote directly from it. I think this would be easier to have one very thorough, articulate post which goes through all these topics for the believe/non believe of god, than to keep trying to come up with our own. Obviously if they had further questions about the post we could answer them. A good example of what I'm refering to would be the book "The Atheist debaters handbook". Basically a post that is similar in nature to that book.

 

[ChristineR]

For what it's worth, I do not find the tenants of Mormonism to be weird. The word I'd use would be derivative. Smith (from my atheist POV) made them up from his knowledge of the Bible, mostly the Old Testament. As a religion matures, its stranger beliefs tend to get moderated and reduced, and it's more universal truths tend to get emphasized.

The pseudo-history in the Book of Mormon appears to have been a number of Old Testament themes (the Exodus) imposed onto 19th century American culture. Hence the idea that the American Indians were the descendants of a second Exodus. It's a lot easier to disprove than the original Exodus from Egypt, but historians now believe that was also mythical. But both stories are true in that the idea of a chosen people lost and redeemed is very much a part of the human psyche.

The more abstract ideas such as the belief that humans might actually evolve into gods are common to many religions. They certainly aren't what was believed by the first Christians, or by most modern Christians, but modern Christians believe many things that would have appalled the early church (and vice versa), so I see no reason to single out the Mormons here.

What I'm hearing here is that some people have had personal experiences so profound and so moving that they believe that these must have come from God. But there are many problems here.

Persons from all faiths report these sorts of experiences. Since most of these faiths contradict one another, the majority of these experiences must be wrong.

Often we hear that people with false experiences are insincere or hypocritical, or faking it for personal gain. While this is clearly the case sometimes, I don't believe it to be the case all, or even most, or the time. Therefore for the sake of the argument, I assume that persons of all faiths have sincere, profound experiences that they believe must be divine. And the majority of them must be wrong.

Furthermore, we know a lot about the brain that makes all faith experiences suspicious. We can induce profound experiences with certain drugs. We see hallucinations in certain brain diseases, and when we treat the diseases the hallucinations go away.

Therefore I cannot accept other people's faith experiences as being good evidence. In fact I can't even accept my own faith experiences as being good evidence.

Finally, if God really does provide people with these sorts of revelations, wouldn't everyone be a Mormon? For example, if eight out of ten people were told by God to become Mormons, and the ninth was diagnosed as schizophrenic, and the tenth got no revelation at all, don't you think that over eighty percent of the population would be Mormon?

Because of all this, I'm afraid I have to reject the revelation arguments. I'm not saying that I can prove that none of them are true, but it certainly is the only reasonable working assumption.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes - Fair enough - though you may want to get more information about what I'm calling possible "coincidences" before you make such a comment. And I said that it points to proof, not that it is proof. I hope that's not the only thing you got out of my posts.

I see where you might have thought I took your comments lightly, but I took your ' Any thoughts ? ' statement, to be referring to your comment on coincidences and statistics; regarding the incidents in your life that you find compelling with regard to your belief in a God.

To me, it would seem to be just another case of ' counting the hits and ignoring the misses ' ; which is invariably the case in paranormal claims.

You find a miraculous intervention in one case of cancer being cured, while I see a million cases where God in his wisdom let nature take it's course. In other words, where God did nothing.
God doing nothing, is indistinguishable from no God at all.

If evidence ' points to proof ', there should be nothing to keep you from walking over to it and picking it up. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from no evidence at all.