LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm.
Click to expand...
Most Mormon critics are Christians.

Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...
False. We are skeptics. Show us the evidence and we will belive.

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's when they jailed and/or killed people who criticised faith. Oh, BTW, religions are still doing that. In many Islam nations criticising religion is punishable by death.

Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.
Click to expand...
Religion harms people. Religion elevates ignorance. If it's good to criticize politics it damn sure is good to criticize religion.

Faith Healing Child Abuse Increasingly Alarming Medical Specialists

Dennis Kruse, Indiana State GOP Senator, Pushes Creationism In Schools
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.
Click to expand...
When I was a Mormon missionary I baptized 21 people. Everyone of them were from a different religion. I asked them to disbelieve most things they held sacred.

I'm not telling her to disbelieve anything. I'm giving her information in the hope she will make an informed decision. If she has the truth then she has nothing to fear. If she does have a reason to fear then perhaps she ought not come here.

This is a skeptics site. She doesn't have to come here and preach to us. Why the hell should she be able to try to convert people but we aren't allowed to try and persuade her that she is wrong?
 
skyrider44 said:
Reality based on the non-existence of God.
Click to expand...

So, demonstrate the existence of 'god' (or 'gods'), and you will have a position from which to make the argument that reality should be "based upon" the existence of 'god' (or 'gods'). Unless the existence of 'god' (or 'gods') is demonstrated, there is no reason to assume such.

OTH, the existence, or lack of existence, of a 'god' (or 'gods') does not change the fact that there is no evidence for (for instance) domestic cattle husbandry in the new world prior to 1492.
 
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The historicity and teachings of the Mormon church are wrong because they are wrong.
 
skyrider44 said:
Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to understand how you can get the impression that we're "telling" her to do anything. We (I use "we" loosely) are trying to get her to explain some contradictions and incongruities.
 
skyrider44 said:
Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.
Click to expand...

This is utter nonsense.

Well beyond the typical belief in a god, she believes things for which there is tangible evidence of its falsehood. We are asking her, or anyone else for that matter, to help us understand how the evidence and the faith are reconciled. She has been useless in this regard. Mrs. Pup, on the other hand....

Skyrider44, can you shed any light on the subject. We have had a lot of heat so far, but not much light.
 
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...

I have stated I have no evidence there is a God (or a Goddess). However, I've always leaned hard toward Wicca, and hold the Earth, Mother Nature, and men as sacred. The fact I have no evidence to prop up my beliefs does not change the fact those beliefs make me happy and make me feel at peace with the world I live in. I also believe I'm a better person for believing there are powers bigger than me, and that I'm not the center of the entire universe.

However, I'm not trying to make anyone see my point of view -especially here- because I'm forced to admit I have no evidence or proof to justify my beliefs.

If LDS members find themselves in the same position, I have no bone to pick with that. But they earn 5,797,777,797 Gaia points with me by simply admitting that. Something like:

"I believe this is the true church despite the clear lack of evidence, and even in light of the fact it's been proven to have questionable foundations and the doctrine contains huge factual errors."

Is enough to make me back off, and never say a word about their beliefs, no matter what I might personally think.

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.
Click to expand...

When was that? Before Cain killed Abel? During the crusades? On Sept 11? I guess...it might be boorish to denigrate the faith of the person you're about to stone to death or burn alive....
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...
So the questions are invisible to you too?

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.
Click to expand...
Feigning martyrdom is considered poor manners here.
 
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...
No. First of all, most critics of the LDS church are theists themselves, mostly other Christians, in fact.

And you have it backward, at least for the sort of scientifically minded atheists that are common to this forum. It isn't that we reject religions because of an a priori assumption that there are no gods, but rather because religions have completely failed to make any cases for any of the myriad gods that have been described. Atheism is not the denial of the existence of gods (although they can do that), it is a lack of belief in gods.

By the way, Are you a Mormon yourself, or a member of another faith? If so, why do you reject other religions?

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.
Click to expand...
Please drop the histrionic air of morally superior indignation. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, this forum exists for the purpose of discussing and critically examining metaphysical claims. Janadele came to this forum of her own free will and is free to leave at any time should she feel uncomfortable about having her claims questioned or challenged. It isn't as though we are accosting her in public or interrupting one of her church services. If you are offended by having your ideas challenged, then don't go to a place that exists for that purpose. And saying, "I think you are wrong" is not a personal attack, so don't insult us by implying that it is.
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.
Click to expand...

And if a Mormon missionary knocks on the door of a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh and tells them to disregard everything that they hold sacred, would you question the ethicality of that?

Again, please stop trying to play the victim. No one is forced to participate in these discussions. The door is over there.
 
skyrider44 said:
Reality based on the non-existence of God.
Click to expand...

No. Lack of belief in gods is the null hypothesis. Epistemologically, it is not necessary to know that gods do not exist in order to lack belief in them. For example: if someone claims that they placed a '67 Dodge Dart in orbit around a star in the Andromeda galaxy, it is not necessary for you to survey hundreds of billions of solar systems to verify the falsehood of this claim in order to lack belief in it.
 
And if a Mormon missionary knocks on the door of a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh and tells them to disregard everything that they hold sacred, would you question the ethicality of that?
Click to expand...

This. Mormons used to knock on my door, and were always very eager to make me throw my beliefs in the trash. Same with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Pentecostals, too. None of them seem to have any questions about the ethics of converting me to their way of thinking.
 
skyrider44 said:
Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.
Click to expand...

This is a typical special plead made by those who think it is fine to proselytize and yet think their beliefs should be immune to criticism or disagreement.

If Janadelle was really worried that her beliefs could be shaken by rational argument, then she wouldn't have started a thread about those beliefs.

Or else, you could argue that having a false belief demolished by rational argument is actually a good thing and that people who have lied to her until she believed those lies were the ones doing something unethical.
 
skyrider44 said:
Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the responses I posted from my wife, who is LDS, about some of the same things that Janadele was asked. There was no harsh backlash against that.

What's ironic is that the strongest critics of the LDS Church, and most religions historically, have been operating from a pro-God perspective. My wife was all but disowned by her Protestant and Catholic siblings.

In the 19th century, protestants were the ones who were murdering LDS members, burning down their homes, tar and feathering them, and driving them west. Google "Hauns Mill." Considering the demographics of the time, I doubt there were many atheists involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom