Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[articulett]

I want to clarify-- by "consciousness without a brain", I mean any invisible, immeasurable form of consciousness that seem to exist more in the minds of human imagination than in any actual reality-- They include (but are not limited to) gods, souls, demons, devils, angels, incubi, succubi, sprites, Engrams, Thetans, hobgoblins, "good vibes", "bad vibes", spirits, dead relatives watching over you, ghosts, entities that interact through wormholes, Bigfoot, Lucifer, muses, etc.

We know a lot about the brain... we know that it appears to be required to think, love, remember, "know", feel, and choose. We know that where such qualia take place and when it's damaged, there's no magical anything stepping in to take over the job for the demented, brain damaged, blinded, schizophrenic... (and no magic entitities stepping in and growing new limbs for amputees either for that matter). We know that humans have been inventing these things for eons to describe feelings they didn't understand, mental illness, love, temptations, weather phenomenon, "seeming signs", coincidences and so forth. We know that these explanations have disappeared as science has given us better tools and a more complete understanding of our world (no more weather gods, gods that require virgin sacrifices, etc.). We don't know if any of them are real... or if some are, how to distinguish real invisible, immeasurable entities from imaginary ones. People tend to believe in the ones their culture has told them about and not the ones of other cultures or religions--these are clearly "unlikely" to them. We are even learning where this sense that we are a soul separate from our brains comes from. There is no evidence that such things as souls without brain are more than a figment of said brains which cannot imagine non-existence even though for most of time they did not exist.

So, of course, your religion sounds as wild and crazy and unlikely as other belief systems that are foreign and involve invisible entities that don't seem real to you. But those who haven't heard of your magical plates that don't exist anymore, purim, thurim, Mormon heaven, Mormon "heavenly father", etc.--of course they sound made up--mythical... just like Catholic Saints and Muhummad's ascension, and Kim Jong Il's siring by a god-- and Xenu and "clearing"

-- And, of course, reading and "wishing to know if what we are hearing is true" can't be a way to validate the things you don't believe in anymore than they are ways to validate the things you've been indoctrinated to believe.

If wishing on a star brings the same results as prayer-- what does that say? If many believers seem to take just as immeasurable and unlikely things for granted doesn't that imply that humans are good and making such things up and NOT that any of them actually exist. And even if they did, how could feeling and faith lead you to the right answer when it leads everyone to different answers. Science leads everyone back to the same reality with the same physical property and the same ways humans misperceive.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ask away - how do you know? Well, there's a variety of sources - scriptures, revelations, prophets, and most importantly, the Holy Spirit, whose role is to confirm the truth of all things.

As for which parts in the Bible are true, some have been supported by other sources, and others have not. Nevertheless, for the most part, it's all secondary to the fact (to me) that God inform me about the most important thing of all - that he exists and that he does have a church to represent him. Everything else flows from that knowledge. This is how I know, for example, that Jesus is the Son of God.

No sorry. You are wrong. God and Satan are having a joke at your expense. Unlike the Jews you have been fooled by the fake "Son of God" and turned from the true path of the Old Testament. I know this because it's exactly the same thing they did (although on a larger scale) to poor ol' Job. Repent. See the error of your ways and get circumcised. Do not listen to the voices in your head. They have been sent by Satan (and his drinking buddy). The Book of Job is the major truth in the Bible. Ignore the rest.

 

[articulett]

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'm not incorrectly guessing--just showing you that I've explored Mormonism and rejected it for similar reasons that you've rejected other religions... and that your knowingness isn't relevant to what is true anymore than Tom Cruise's knowingness that there is no such thing as "chemical imbalances"... I know you don't like that... but you presume I don't like the fact that you believe you can know something by feeling. I don't dislike it-- I just note that it's a known way humans fool themselves and that there is no evidence that it can lead to actual knowledge. I believe that you believe you beliefs. But I also believe that Tom Cruise believes his beliefs and the hijackers believed theirs. But all this "Inner knowingness" means nothing in regards to the actual truth, does it?

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.

The fallacy is yours once again. Sure, if something is true then the rain god analogy doesn't apply-- but unless the evidence is better than the rain dance analogy-- unless it can be tested scientifically and teased out from the known ways people fool themselves-- there is NO WAY to distinguish it from the rain god analogy except subjective feelings. And polls of how many people have the strongest feelings about what-- is clearly a bad way to determine the truth. Lots of people believed the earth was flat.

People use your criteria and get different truths all the time. Lots of people think they are getting messages from invisible entities or aliens or radiowaves etc. But if such things don't exist, then all of them must be fooling themselves. If such things do exist, then we have no means of determining the truth from delusions. Therefore, it is all useless knowledge until evidence accumulates to show otherwise-- and not subjective evidence. All the subjective evidence in the world and inability to comprehend it's roundness -- doesn't make it flat. And not understanding coincidence doesn't make your god fairytale true, I might add anymore than it makes Zeus true.

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.

But you could kill your kid if god asked you too like he asked Abraham? Have you read Demon Haunted World and read the similarly frustrated people who truly believed their experiences despite having no way to prove to anyone else they were real (I don't think any were Mormon--but they were similar frustrated at being unable to prove things like alien visitation and ghostly visits though they KNEW they were real-- they were mad that others didn't find them as real as they "KNEW" they were.) Sure you can't walk away from what you "know" anymore than a schizophrenic could-- but you can't make yourself believe a schizophrenics delusion just because he'd swear his life on its veracity either. The Heavens Gate Crowd clearly knew the spaceship was coming... and Tom Cruise really must believe to suffer such embarrassment... and naturally the hijackers were eager to experience their heavenly glories-- they had inner knowingness. But, so what? Their inner knowingness means nothing to you the same way your inner knowingness means nothing to me... the same way my inner knowingness means nothing to you.

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.

Or so you've used semantics to tell yourself. Who's disbelief doesn't involve subjective evidence? And what constitutes objective evidence for disbelief (since you can't prove a negative)?... or have you just rejected all other beliefs subjectively...the way others have rejected yours subjectively? My disbelief in Mormonism etc. is the same as your disbelief in Scientology etc. unless it involves Satan tricking people or some other supernatural nuttiness. Whatever reasons you can give for believing in your stuff-- others can give for different stuff-- and many will even die for these beliefs. Whatever reasons you disbelieve in other religions... can be offered as reasons to disbelieve in yours.
I read the BOM (or I tried)... and I prayed, but I got the distinct impression that this was one of the oldest manipulations in the book on par with The Emperor's New Clothes. So I got my truth. But your beliefs explain that away the way all religions explain away similar failures to "see the light".

And you are confused about feelings versus facts again. Love is a feeling. It's not a "fact". You define it and you feel it and we can presume it's similar for most humans based on the actions it causes and what we know goes on in the brain and our understanding of why such a feeling would evolve. Our mirror neurons allow us to recognize our own feelings in others and presume they are similar. Your claims about loving your kids do not involve the supernatural... unless your actions belied your claims, I would have no less reason to believe you then if you said you like cheesecake. It's not a huge claim-- we know humans and we know love and both involve qualities we can measure both by --observation, brain scans, and testing. That's not a claim in the same category as magic gold plates that floated to the sky defying laws of physics that were translated via seeing stones in a hat which told hidden truths at odds with genetics and archaeology... (sexist, racist, "truths" at that). See the difference? That's not the same as anecdotes of magic underwear and Kolob and getting your body back in the next life in the "best form" it was in this life... it's not the same as claims of doing good by baptizing yourself for dead people so they can become Mormon or claims that Joseph Smith was a prophet-- Those kinds of claims are more on par with Scientology's claims or Catholocisms claims or Moonies claims or Myths. And, therefore, equally likely to be true... and equally likely to be "understood" by faith and feeling... extraordinary claims require compelling, replicable, testable evidence. Otherwise, it's best to relegate it where one relegates all delusions, myths, and fanciful tales.

 

[articulett]

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..

Especially such a specific unlikely bizarre god. Sure... deism, I can see-- or some god outside of nature. But a god who killed his kid who was really him because the first lady sprung into being ate from a tree and damned mankind? A god who impregnates a woman without their consent, and we are supposed to shrug it off, because the kid turned out good-- oh, and he killed the kid (who was him) in front of her-- so she suffers horribly in life... and he (the god-kid) suffers for a day and a half and then rules happily ever after. And then visits the New World and plants gold plates for some guy to uncover hundreds of years later...

Sure... there are some things I don't understand-- I don't fill it in with fanciful tales. I just wait until the data accumulates or accept that I cannot understand some things.

 

[rcronk]

The Animus - The truth to be found in commandments is that living a commandment brings lasting happiness. That is a truth. I agree - God apparently doesn't do "signs" often according to scripture I've read anyway. Again, I think we have to look at the claimed purposes of this life: to get a body, learn right from wrong, be tested, prepare to meet God. I can do all of this without seeing God or getting objective proof of His existence. I've seen satanic things and so I believe people can do things that are genuinely through his power, but I think most of it is BS and trickery and I think uncovering that is important.

ChristineR - Thanks for the simple and to the point post. You might be interested in this study on the Book of Mormon that objectively proves that neither Smith nor his peers wrote it and that each prophet in the book were actually different writers: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_studies

That disproves your theory of Smith making it up from what he knew of the Old Testament.

Diogenes - Thanks for bringing up counting hits and ignoring misses. I see this all the time and it's an important thing to keep in mind. Evidence that points to proof would be like experiments on atoms that don't match the current theory. They don't prove anything in and of themselves, but they could lead a researcher to do more studies and eventually find the truth.

articulett - Mormon theology says that God has a perfected, immortal, physical body and spirit. So He has a brain. To me, inner knowingness is very relevant to actual truth because of my experiences. I can't explain them away as feelings, hallucinations, or strong wishes. I've experienced those things (codeine makes me hallucinate ) and they are definitely not the same. I guess the only way to find out is to try out each belief system and see what you find. I don't think I have enough faith or trust to kill my kid if God asked me to. I don't trust myself enough and I don't trust God enough. From what I understand, that was a test of Abraham's faith. Schizophrenic? You're being very offensive and disrespectful. My inner knowingness should mean nothing to you. Actually, I have subjective experiences that have helped me to know that God exists and a few other things. This actually agrees with most religions out there. Why are you trying to put me against them when I actually agree with most of what they teach? You're confusing feelings with experiences with God.

As for a bizarre God. The picture you just painted is a strawman of Christianity that even I would knock down. It's ridiculous. If that's what you really believe Christianity is, then I don't blame you for thinking it's bizarre. I found a talk given by a Mormon about Christ and why he had to die. It is here: http://rcronk.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/a-personal-search-for-the-meaning-of-the-atonement/ It helped me understand a little better who God is, who Christ is and what His role in all of this is. I hope you and others here will check it out.

 

[The_Animus]

Could you still please provide a detailed accounting of your best personal experience from god?

 

[rcronk]

I guess the one that has the most physical evidence would be the time on my mission in Chile where I was with a companion (Elder Lizarraga, from Argentina) who had a reputation for being able to testify to people and by just telling them "I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (in Spanish, of course) or "I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God" to someone on the street, they would immediately begin crying, telling us that they know that what he was saying is true. He wasn't saying it strangely and he was a fairly small guy so he wasn't overbearing or anything. These were intelligent city people from Santiago, Chile. I saw this over and over during the time I was with him and was amazed by it every time. I had rarely seen anything like it during the entire two years of my mission. I talked and testified to thousands of people and they rarely acted so intensely.

On one particular occasion, we started talking to a tough-looking gentleman on the street and Elder Lizarraga said something like, "I know that God lives, Jesus is the Son of God, and Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God." The man started crying, telling us that he knew that what was being said was true. Eventually we went to his house to teach him the first discussion. During that discussion (I was reading it in Spanish because I didn't have it memorized well enough yet), the gentleman was mouthing the words I was speaking slightly ahead of what I was saying and when I would mess up or pause, I'd see that he would continue mouthing the words of the discussion just as they were printed while I sat with my mouth wide open. Elder Lizarraga was also watching this and was amazed. I could feel the presence of the Holy Ghost very strongly during that discussion testifying to me and the others in the room that what we were saying was absolutely true and that this man was being taught these things directly by the Holy Ghost. This happened on the next two visits where he would mouth the entire discussion just ahead of us. He told us he had never heard of the "Mormons" before we talked to him.

I have had many other experiences with physical manifestations and multiple witnesses throughout my life, but the one listed above was one of the more powerful ones.

 

[The_Animus]

Thank you for sharing that experience with us.

I have a few questions about your story. Could you clarify them for me?

1. Could you please be a little more specific about the part where these people would break down crying. Did you simply walk up to someone and say "I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God" and they started crying? Or did you talk with them a while first and then say that? I'm just looking for a little more specific detail for this part. The same with the tough guy when Elder Lizarraga said "I know that God lives, Jesus is the Son of God, and Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God."

2.

immediately begin crying, knowing that what he was saying is true... The man started crying, telling us that he knew that what was being said was true.

What did these people specifically say. Did they say they know you are right about god. Did they just say they know you are right. Again I'm just looking for a little more specific detail about what happened.

3.

the gentleman was mouthing the words I was speaking slightly ahead of what I was saying and when I would mess up or pause, I'd see that he would continue mouthing the words of the discussion just as they were printed while I sat with my mouth wide open.

So his mouth was moving but he wasn't actually talking? As in his mouth moved but no sound came out? Do you have any experience with lip reading?

4.

He told us he had never heard of the "Mormons" before we talked to him.

Had he heard of Christianity in general?

5. When was this? What year?

6. If someone told you a very similar story, almost along the exact same lines. The crying, the mouthing of words, and so forth, but this person who told of this personal account said it was for Catholicism, what would you think about it?

 

[rcronk]

I apologize but I have edited the post a couple of times to clarify in anticipation of such questions so some of these have already been clarified. I'll answer them all for convenience:

1. Yes, Elder Lizarraga would just walk up to someone on the street and they would start crying when he would testify of something like "I know God lives" or "I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God" or "I know Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God". It was within a few seconds of walking up to them. No prior conversation. Same with the tough guy.

2. They would say that they knew that what we were saying is true. I would also feel this same way - not just a feeling, but as though knowledge was being poured directly into my brain. The words they said always matched what I wanted to say and accurately described the experience I was having.

3. He might have been mumbling rather than just mouthing. It was clear enough for both my companion and I to notice and I even had a completely different companion come with me one time and the same thing happened and he saw it too and recognized that the guy was mouthing (or mumbling) the words of the discussion ahead of what I was saying and when I'd pause, he'd continue. I didn't tell the new companion about it beforehand - I didn't think it would happen again. Since we had the words right there in front of us, it was easy to see that he was mouthing the exact words coming up in the discussion. Once I noticed he was doing it, I started watching him more closely and I think I even paused on purpose to see what would happen. He just kept right on going with the words in the discussion. I'm not a professional lip reader but I would guess that most people could read lips when they have the words written down in front of them. I and two other people were able to see it.

4. I assume he had heard of Christianity in general since of the thousands of people I talked to in Chile, I didn't run into any who wasn't familiar with Christianity. When I was in Washington D.C. for two months, I ran into only one person who claimed to have never heard of God or Christ.

5. The year was either 1996 or 1997.

6. I'd ask what was being said so I could compare it to the truths I already know. If they were saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that God lives, which Catholicism believes, then I would expect that truth to be confirmed also.

 

[articulett]

I know you think it's disrespectful, and I'm not trying to pit you against other religions, but the fact is that all religions claim to have "the truth"-- there is a premise that there are divine truths and that some people can feel them or pray to find them or will receive signs or revelations.

To me religions, just like gangs or other groups are clearly evolutionary,...we are social animals like other primates... we have clans that act as an insurance policy for the in group. Males tend to protect the clan in general, and females tend facilitate in-group cooperation and protection and care of the vulnerable. Males tend to be hierarchal and so they build governments, religions, and societies where guys earn favors through allegiance...and work their way to the top. The smartest or maybe best deluded guys claim to speak for an even higher authority...-- hence religion. In some societies they have harems...and access to women is according to hiearchal status (support of the leadership)-- this is how Mormonism got it's toehold, in fact. And women survive and pass on their genes by supporting the rise of their men. Men who rise in power have more access to opportunities to mate-- religions tend to pass on genes and memes (ideas) into babies ready to absorb whatever culture they are in. Children trust those in charge because it's evolutionarily advantageous. And religions must spawn and convert so that, like a pyramid scheme, the men can rise in power by having people beneath them to prop up the hierarchy... and the women can have help raising the broods the leaders demand-- they proliferate because they copy well... they copy like chain letters--good things will happen if you believe (and you will get favors and protection here on earth from other believers as well as salvation) and bad things happen to non-believers (they are shunned, excommunicated, demonized, threatened with hell, told that they must pray harder...called apostates) --Bonus points are promised for converting others. All growing religions that have that... they also have way to make their members feel special or chosen or above those who don't have their truth... They also tend to encourage large families and early, frequent indocrination and things like testimony... moreso if they actively proselytize.

Independent thinkers historically were less likely to survive and spawn tons of offspring. Genes and memes promoting this thinking are not as abundant for obvious reasons.

And this the same basic design plan for every successful religion or regime-- and it's great for propagating the cause-- but that doesn't make it true or right. In fact it's dishonest and wrong to tell people that actual truths can come through faith and feelings-- there is no evidence this is so. Those are all beliefs. Inner knowingness is not worth anything. It is not a way to distinguish truth from falsity. You are insulted that I'd compare a religious delusion to a schizophrenic delusion-- but unless you have schizophrenia you have no way to determine the difference. You sound the same. You sound like people who have been fooled by mentalists pretending to be psychic and those who have had amazing religious experiences later found to be due to self hypnosis or temporal lobe epilepsy... you sound like those who speak in tongues and believe that's god of showing them they have the truth. You sound like Tom Cruise when he KNOWS there is no such thing as a Mental Disorder. Of course we can't know what you know. But we can know what are valid ways to know the truth and what are the common ways people fool themselves and how and why. We can study it and see that you truly believe in your experiences, but if you watched any of Randi's tapes or google Marjo Gortner-- or Peter Popoff... you see people crying and moved but via a religious delusion. Feelings are not truths. Some people have been deluded and sound just like you but believe completely different things... how do you know they are wrong and you are right?-- it seems the only answer is that you think you can't be fooled by your feelings while others can. And why do you think feelings and faith can lead to the truth??!?-- "Because I feel it" is a circular answer... but all woo is circular.

What is the biggest kernel of truth that you got from a feeling? That Joseph Smith was a prophet? What is the most useful truth in this life that you got from a "feeling" or revelation or faith? How do you think those who feel the truth like the hijackers can be shown that their truth is wrong if they feel their conviction as strongly as you do? If life is about eternity, then their actions could all be part of god's plan... maybe he wanted the passengers to start their eternity early or begin converting to Mormonism (per your beliefs) at that time.

How is your religion not like all the other religions that evolved because religions have tricks (mentioned above) for getting copied-- and we have primal instincts involving social grouping and "us vs. them" hierarchal clan instincts... at least men, in general do. To me, you guys sound like every charismatic leader-- I'm sure Ghengis Khan and Kim Jong Il had similar stories and ways of affirming the belief. Greek Myths are similar in theme. I know Scientologists sound like Mormons do in their zeal and trust of "feelings". The religious right curries allegiance by mixing god and patriotism while demonizing dissent.

From a skeptics perspective it just sounds like you are repeating the dogma that makes you believe you are not like all those other examples... but different and special. Your woo is the true woo... but you don't give us any reason why. And your method for showing us is hardly double blind... nor is it anything you are willing to do for a faith you don't believe... or for atheism. I don't think you will study and find out if faith is really a good way to know the truth or whether people can be fooled in the same manner you have for "different truths". I just don't see it-- I don't see how your claims are more likely to be true, but I understand why everyone thinks they can feel the truth. Believing this allows you to think you are more moral and that you'll get special rewards without really thinking about whether what you are doing is moral--plusm it's scary to think that there may not be an afterlife... spinning the delusion and converting others keeps you from having to think to much about whether it's really true. God's whole way of telling you the truth is a feeling??

BTW, the Catholic church doesn't believe in the authority of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Prophet... and if prophets are infallible, how can they get Alzheimers as Ezra Taft Benson (former Mormon prophet) did. His grandson, Steven Benson is an atheit because he saw the delusion spinning up close. Why wouldn't god protect his mouthpeace from such terrible brain damage... and if there were something more than a brain, where was it when a "prophet" needed it.

I think your church makes grown men sound like little boys playing cops and robbers or Star Wars. It's so self aggrandizing and against all the most useful ways humans have come to know knowledge. You wouldn't go to a doctor to treat you with faith or fly on a plane built on faith or learn math via faith....

It just seems to an outsider that people need to spin and spin to make sense of these stories and convince themselves and others that they can "feel" "higher truths". It's so teenage boy like and primitive... even apes have good guys and bad guys and us vs. them... and the "do unto others" thing that religion teaches seems to only mean "do unto others who believe as you do and can affirm your faith and authority"--

I know you think I sound mean or demoralizing, but to us you DO sound like every other woo with some wild claim,

If by some wild stretch of the imagination, you were deceiving yourself and faith was a terrible way to know anything true, would you even want to know?

At least answer that. Because if you wouldn't or don't answer, I'll take that as a sign that you would rather believe you have the truth than find out you may be wrong.

 

[articulett]

I know you think I'm being offensive and disrespectful, but I don't find anything respect worthy about faith and I think it's offensive that you think you have felt the truth while knowing full well others have felt things they thought were true but you were not. It sounds like you think yourself special or superior... but then again, doesn't every guy of every faith? You try to hide it, but you are just smug sounding. And if it offends you to have your faith questioned it might be because you aren't used to examining it through a skeptic lens. The truth shouldn't fear a bright light shone in the dark corners. Your apologetics don't impress me nor anyone here. I've heard apologetics from every faith and woo. It may convince the trusting and vulnerable-- but that doesn't make it true. And the fact that you chide me rather than answer the quesion about how your experiences are different than a delusion speaks volumes. I recall Uri Gellar does the same when his jig is up on the Tonight Show.

 

[rcronk]

articulett - yes, I like to know when I'm deceived. I had that happen before with other things and it was good to see the truth and move toward it. I have given you subjective and objective evidence. You have not given me subjective or objective evidence. You have given me a guilt by association argument over and over though but that isn't evidence.

 

[articulett]

articulett - yes, I like to know when I'm deceived. I had that happen before with other things and it was good to see the truth and move toward it. I have given you subjective and objective evidence. You have not given me subjective or objective evidence. You have given me a guilt by association argument over and over though but that isn't evidence.

What objective evidence did you give that feelings are a good way to know truths? Did I miss an example? What evidence are you asking me for? Are you asking for evidence that people can sound just as convinced as you and be wrong? I'd be glad to provide evidence for any assertion.

All I see from you is subjective evidence and anecdote. Things "feel" right. But I want something different than a delusion... or different from the claims of people who believe that aliens are visiting them... something so I can know that feelings and faith can lead to actual verifiable truths. I want something so I can distinguish you from all those people who write letters of their sincere truths to Carl Sagan in Demon Haunted world. Have you read that? Their testimony is so convincing that I really believe that THEY believe-- but I am also quite certain they are deceived; I'm sure you'd think so too.

I don't really have beliefs in the divine or invisible entities or immeasurable forces, so I cannot offer evidence of such. But I don't think any such beliefs are warranted, though I keep looking to see if it's ever anything more than self conviction and anecdote that people proffer for evidence. Religionists just seem to confuse facts and opinion -- and hearsay with evidence... I don't know if it's human error or something inculcated by religion or culture or what.

I don't see a reason to think that Joseph Smith was any more a prophet than Kim Jong Il or Muhummed or Buddha... I don't even know if there was a real Jesus. I do know that tons of men have claimed to be prophets or sons of gods... and I know some of them were schizophrenic (Charles Manson) but that doesn't mean that any of them were or that there is a god... much less a god that speaks via revelation instead of something clear. I think religion is responsible for the whole notion that faith can lead to truth. Where is the evidence that this is so? Realty is measurable and doesn't need to be believed in or "felt" to be true as far as I can tell.

Maybe faith is enough for some people. But given the variety of things believed on faith and the conflicting stories told-- I can't imagine why anyone would think it was a valid way to know anything... much less the presumptuousness of people of all faiths and the certainty that they have the right one and surely will be "saved" for their "belief".

 

[rcronk]

The objective evidence was in my story a few posts back. It was witnessed by the senses and witnessed by multiple people. I have many other experiences like those. Sure it's not scientific, but it's more than a complete lack of evidence against it. You can choose what you want to try and so can I - and those choices can be different. Cool, huh?

 

[articulett]

articulett - yes, I like to know when I'm deceived. I had that happen before with other things and it was good to see the truth and move toward it.

Here's a quote from Ray Hyman from one of Randi's videos... there are lots available...

“And in another one of those unforgettable incidents, the late Stanley Jaks convinced me to do a palm reading on someone and tell them the exact opposite of what I would normally say. So I did this. If I thought I saw in this woman’s palm that she had heart trouble at age 5, for example, I said, ‘well, you have a very strong heart,’ that sort of thing.

“In this particular case, though, it was really spooky, because she just sat there poker faced. Usually I get a lot of feedback from the subject. In fact, I depend on the feedback, and this woman was giving me nothing. It was weird. I thought I bombed. But it turns out the reason she was so quiet was because she was stunned.

“She told me it was the most impressive reading she had ever had. So I did this with a couple more clients, and I suddenly realized that whatever was going on had nothing to do with what I said but with the presentation itself. This was one of the reasons I went into psychology! I wanted to find out how it was that people, including myself, could be so easily deceived. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I am not as confrontational as Randi, because I actually see that ‘but there for the grace of God go I.’ ”

I wish I had a link... but watch as Randi reveals tricks in some of these videos... http://www.geocities.com/drugfreealcoholic/
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=70

And/or child preacher Marjoe Gortner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdI8ag1k0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0p4ZDnDoQ

Or Dawkins new clip Beyond Reason
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

This will give you a hint about why we think feelings and faith are such very, very poor ways to know something. There's no way to tell one faith based belief from any other without testing it or looking at the evidence. And we have to remove the placebo affect and the like to understand the truth.

People are fooled all the time because they are told that faith and feeling are not only avenues towards truth--but necessary for salvation... the sign of a good person. You called me offensive just for pointing out that faith is not a good way for knowing anything... it's on par with a delusion. And it's an abuse of trust whether you are the believer or getting others to believe-- even if you really think it's true. You have learned to silence dissent to keep your "truth" from being questioned. And it should be questioned.

When you read the above or watch the clips you should see how very important it is to disband the notion that faith is a good way to know something. It's just a good way to fool manipulate masses of people. If nothing else, you should preach it as a belief and not as a truth, because that is all it is. The same as all these clips will show you.

If you really want to know what's true, instead of getting offended, find out if feelings and facts can lead to truth-- find out if you could be fooling yourself.
Really listen to Randfan the way you expect your converts to listen to you.

I could give you all sorts of subjective feelings I had about what was true (it sure wasn't Mormonism, and I'm sure you'd have your apologetics to explain why)-- but it's irrelevant. Because subjectivity cannot lead to objecting truths. And the above links ARE objective evidence as to just how very easy smart and trusting people can believe things that are not true.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What no response to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2910233&postcount=162

Come on. Why am I wrong and you right!

 

[articulett]

The objective evidence was in my story a few posts back. It was witnessed by the senses and witnessed by multiple people. I have many other experiences like those. Sure it's not scientific, but it's more than a complete lack of evidence against it. You can choose what you want to try and so can I - and those choices can be different. Cool, huh?

Sure... I had some amazing experiences when I believed. But in retrospect that doesn't make them true. That isn't objective evidence of anything... it wouldn't even amount to hearsay in a court of law. At best, it's evidence that you helped other people believe they found "the truth"-- but so did Ray Hyman in my example... and he's so great to watch... the people want it to be true... they make it into the truth... they are moved to tears. Watch Randi and Carlos... Watch Marjoe Gortner, how do you or I or the people you converted or anyone on this forum know that the message that moved the people in your "objective evidence" was more true than the people who were moved in all the links I provided-- People WANT to believe that god has singled them out for a special message (and Mormon proselytizing is big on telling them just that... but so are evangelicals).

I'm not doubting that you believe or that your converts believe-- I'm just pointing out that all the feeling of specialness and inner glory in the world can't lead to "divine truths". You or someone else would have to prove that there were divine truths first... secondly, you would have to show that feelings could give you actual knowledge... that your inspired feelings were more likely to be real than the many examples mentioned--and if your only evidence is your own inner feeling, then of course we'll be skeptical of you--just as you are skeptical of the people in those links. We will feel towards you as you feel towards them because it seems to be the same. And we recognize your technique for the manipulation it is just as you will watch those clips and recognize the manipulations for what they are. If you are aware of the things in this link and still expect us to respect your feelings--then that would be arrogant on your part... because you would be saying, in essence, that you are above all those foolish others... and you have the really true woo while they were deceived. How can we not see you as deceived just as the examples in the links?

 

[The_Animus]

4. I assume he had heard of Christianity in general since of the thousands of people I talked to in Chile, I didn't run into any who wasn't familiar with Christianity. When I was in Washington D.C. for two months, I ran into only one person who claimed to have never heard of God or Christ.

Well were there other missionaries there? From what churches? How many and how long have they been there?

5. The year was either 1996 or 1997.

Wow ten or 11 years ago. That is quite a while. Are you familiar with Elizabeth Loftus? She was a psychologist who did a lot of studies concerning memory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_automobile_destruction

After you read about that study, do you think it's possible you do not remember all the details correctly?

6. I'd ask what was being said so I could compare it to the truths I already know. If they were saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that God lives, which Catholicism believes, then I would expect that truth to be confirmed also.

Well I assume when you talked with these people you discussed specifically Mormon beliefs and how they are the true beliefs. As such I meant what if someone said a similar story about Catholicism and the person cried and said they knew that the catholic missionaries were speaking the truth. And they mumbled whatever the catholic discussion would be as it was being read. What would this mean to you if the personal experience you had to confirm to you that Mormonism was true also happened to someone who was Catholic or Protestant?

Also I have a new question unrelated to the other 6 I asked you. I seem to remember you posting that you used to be a LDS Mormon church follower, then gave it up to be atheist, then gave that up to go back to religion. What made you leave the LDS church the first time to become an atheist?

 

[articulett]

What no response to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2910233&postcount=162

Come on. Why am I wrong and you right!

Most Mormons are American and most American males are circumcised... less so as insurance companies have stopped paying for it. But conservative groups such as Mormons are unlikely to have "rebelled" and stopped the practice on their sons. Allegiance to authority and custom is big in Mormon culture.

But I'm sure they are rolling their eyes at everything else you say just as they roll their eyes at other truths. They know that you aren't "feeling" your truth the way they are, and therefore, it can't be the real truth because real truths are felt only after praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true (circular logic)-- and no other "truths" are felt as strong as Mormons feel their truths (and they will tell you this themselves). Therefore, there woo is the true woo.

My cousin (Catholic) said at the dinner table one Easter ("the parting of the seas is enough for me") And others nodded in agreement. He was saying that what he'd heard of biblical miracles was enough to make him buy the whole ball of wax. And I was thinking, "Does he even know that in the story (unverified) that it's MOSES that parts the sea-- not Jesus? And that we don't have evidence of Moses actual existence much less actual seas parting?" It's a story-- not actual knowledge and even if it was accurate in means nothing in relation to whether Jesus existed... much less whether he was god (incarnate) killed and then risen bodily after a day and a half that is somehow extrapolated to 3 days... to supposedly pay for sins of people past and present in some bizarre atonement plan by some guy who has no need for atonement plans.

But I just shut my mouth. But I have to say that I am flummoxed by the wacky stuff that passes as assertions of unquestioned faith all because it's tied to "god". I think it's scary and that it's weird that we've made a culture where such outrageous claims go unchallenged--even rewarded. People feel special because they've "believed" something or had "faith" or "felt" a "higher truth" or because "god" told them-- and they reaffirm this nuttiness in other believers without barely a thought as to the implications of how crazy their beliefs sound to a non-believer... and how very different the world would be if their claims were true-- if the laws of physics were routinely messed with so that bodies and golden plates could float ala "Left Behind" books or yogis that supposedly levitate-- so that men could part seas. (And aren't these piddly miracles considering magician, Lance Burton makes a car fly every night. Heck, I've seen it with my own eyes. Cars, would be "chariots of the gods" back in biblical times-- and airplanes moreso, would they?) To me it just seems to take a mind not to think about these things to keep "faith" alive.

How can you look at the history of mass delusion and assume that your personal feelings somehow kept you immune? Do they just not think that others have feelings like they do. (I always wonder when people praise god for things --if they don't realize that they are insulting people who prayed for equal or more heartfelt favors like curing a childs' cancer.. and their prayers weren't answered. Do believers feel, "why did god answer that persons prayers and not mine"? or Do they all just write it off as god's mysterious "will"?)

I keep wanting to think that it's something more than a feeling or "the parting of the seas" that make people believe the wild claims they make-- but it never is. They've just trained themselves not to think a lot or use reason when it comes to "faith". And I'm tired of being the bad guy for asking if there IS anything else (and pointing out how lame it is if there isn't.)

 

[rcronk]

The Animus - We ran into nuns and Jehova's witnesses sometimes. The Catholics had been there a very long time. I'm not sure about the Jehovah's Witnesses though. As for memories, I wrote it in my journal that same day (6 Aug 1997). The man's name was Marcelo and he was 24. We taught him the next day and I wrote that he was mouthing the words. The next day a random large lady tried to beat me with a broom. Being a missionary is a mixed bag. From what I have said about the experience and what I read about it, I got it right so I guess my memory is ok. If a Catholic had the same experience and the truths they received conflicted with what I had received I would either assume that I don't understand how those truths could be reconciled or that they were misled or possibly that I was misled. It would be like someone coming up to me at noon with the sun glaring down on me and saying "The sun is not shining on you." The spiritual confirmation is that strong.articulett - I understand what you're saying. I choose to trust subjective evidence and some objective confirmations over "a bunch of others have been deceived so I must be also." We disagree. Ok, please let's move on.