Smart Kid
- Thread starter Dunstan
- Start date
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Sorry to see you leave cronk, I really am. I hope you will reconsider but I understand.
FTR, I prayed and got an answer. The answer was, that the BOM was true and JS was a prophet of god. Based on that I sold everything I had, including a 1961 Chevrolet Camaro that I restored by hand, and went on a two year mission. I testified and baptized many people. Many of them told me that it was my unwavering faith that led them to pray and ask god if it was true also. There was little question for a good portion of my life as a believer that the church was true. Not always but often enough.
Cronk, scientists, including social scientists, anthropologists, behaviorists, neuroscientists and others tell us that the phenomenon of gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of a thing is actually well understood.
If a person is sincere in trying to discern whether or not the Catholic Church is a the one true church and that person reads the scriptures, goes to church and follows the rules then he or she will come to have a powerful witness that it is indeed true. It is so powerful that people will die for it.
Problem is, there is nothing about Mormonism that is unique in this aspect.
Good luck in whatever and wherever life takes you.
Tony,
Apologies for lumping you in with whateverhisnamewas.
You make a lot of sense.
Rcrock has made a fundamental error which you have pointed out, but he is not sticking around to debate it. Not that I feel he can be convinced because now his life has meaning which it didn't have before. I would not want to take that away from him in any case. The Book Of Mormon came around when he really needed it. It saved him, what can we say?
BJ
Apologies for lumping you in with whateverhisnamewas.
You make a lot of sense.
Rcrock has made a fundamental error which you have pointed out, but he is not sticking around to debate it. Not that I feel he can be convinced because now his life has meaning which it didn't have before. I would not want to take that away from him in any case. The Book Of Mormon came around when he really needed it. It saved him, what can we say?
BJ
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Noooooooooooooooo...dont leave.
Seriously, are saying that you're leaving the forum? I hope not.
As a chiropractor once told me as I lay on his table, "Trust the process!"
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Did you? I didn't notice.
Thanks.
I tend to agree, but I figure that when a religious person comes to a debate such as this, and especially when they're claiming that their beliefs are the truth, they're willing to have their beliefs scrutinized, ya know?
Well, rcrock just wants you to go through the same process that he went through (or should I say, the same process that he went through the second time round). The problem is you cannot do this because you are not him. Even if you were like him, you are not in the same circumstances as he was when the Book of Mormon worked for him (and neither was he the first time round - so he should, at least, empathise with you). But it sounds like it saved his life or something so you can hardly expect him to give it up very easily. As long as he needs this thing he will defend it against any argument not matter how rational. He has found another, non-rational, way of knowing.
I'm still here but I'm focusing my time on the other thread. I get what you guys are saying and I can understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how us discussing this any more will be useful other than to escalate a contention between us. That doesn't work.
To quote from the Dhammapada that I'm reading now, "The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby."
To quote from the Dhammapada that I'm reading now, "The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby."
I am with you here. I am content to understand your point of view, and for you to understand mine, and for both of us to understand see how and why they differ. I never expect to pursuade anyone from a view they've taken decades to get to in the space of a single thread. I wouldn't have much respect for you if I could. I am familiar with the alternative way of knowing but I am unable to accept it. It worked for you - it made you a better person and it has enabled you to finally enjoy your life - and therefore you do accept it.
For me, it's like predators hunting down and killing their prey or that wasp that paralyses a caterpillar and lays its eggs inside its body cavity so that when the larvae hatch they eat the caterpillar alive from the inside out. It may not be pretty but it is what's real. I prefer to start with that and see what I can make out of it. So far things haven't worked out too bad.
There is no doubt that these books contain kernels of truth.
Explanation.....of life! Anyone care to add....
Answer:
A "living system" is nothing more than a collection of animated chemicals; admittedly a complicated collection. The animation of those chemicals comes from any source of energy that is at a higher potential than that "life" which it is responsible for driving.
This can be seen clearly if you think of where "life" exists on the 'potential energy scale' in the Universe ... it is nearly at the bottom! (37'C as compared to say 20 million is a huge potential gap.) That is exactly where we would expect it to be, so that it can be a sink for the higher energy levels to pour their energy into. The focal point of this energy transfer is life and it can not be at the lowest level, because it needs to transfer energy itself, to do what it does.
If you ask the 'personal' question ... why does it "want" to exist or what causes it? Simple! What's stopping it???
The fact is; when something can be identified as stopping life {eg bullet to brain or lack of nutrient} then nothing can super cede that knowledge... have you {has anyone} seen a corpse walking? No!
The net result is a collection of chemicals that are able to store the energy {redistribute it to useful life processes} but only for limited time.
Just as when a tree collects minute energy from the sun (compared to the source) and builds on it to grow. Other consumers then utilise the stored energy as you move from one trophic level to next, at a depletion rate of about 10% to the next level.
Important bit.......
You "feel" there is some distinction between "living" and "non-living"...
The only distinction is that the living matter is non-living matter that is animated by virtue of being part of a chemical reaction. In your body there are elements found in the ground... not different elements. They react the same, crystalize the same and are not "living", whether in you or not.
"life" is a condition, a process... you can not talk of chemicals as alive or dead... only the 'process' as being ongoing {alive} or terminated {dead}........... or paused {coma}.
So it is with great regret that I must inform you that you are not "alive".
You are a bunch of chemicals, no more "alive" than any other reaction. You gain energy from oxidation of glucose slowed stepwise by enzymes. All the chemical reactions have physical foundations... none spiritual. In fact there is no spirit.
Your "non-living" things.... notice your term... things!
You are comfortable with your definition of life as MRSGREN perhaps. But the fact remains that all of these things are explainable using biochemistry, and ultimately physics.
I'll tell you what I see as a non-believer in a god/spirit {meaning I know there is no such thing}.....
You as a believer, trivialise this life we have, these bodies we live in are regarded by you as nothings, mere vessels for transporting the 'soul' to where and for what purpose you seem to make up as you go. (in terms of all faiths, not just you personally).
To this end, religion belittles life and us all, relegating it to near uselessness and not worthy of care. It's no wonder we have so many suicide terrorists, off on a mission to see god.
On the other hand we have atheists who love their bodies & lives because that's all we've got and all we ever will have.... so live this life; it is precious!
Griff... "Cease the day!"..... Dead Poet's Society.
Answer:
A "living system" is nothing more than a collection of animated chemicals; admittedly a complicated collection. The animation of those chemicals comes from any source of energy that is at a higher potential than that "life" which it is responsible for driving.
This can be seen clearly if you think of where "life" exists on the 'potential energy scale' in the Universe ... it is nearly at the bottom! (37'C as compared to say 20 million is a huge potential gap.) That is exactly where we would expect it to be, so that it can be a sink for the higher energy levels to pour their energy into. The focal point of this energy transfer is life and it can not be at the lowest level, because it needs to transfer energy itself, to do what it does.
If you ask the 'personal' question ... why does it "want" to exist or what causes it? Simple! What's stopping it???
The fact is; when something can be identified as stopping life {eg bullet to brain or lack of nutrient} then nothing can super cede that knowledge... have you {has anyone} seen a corpse walking? No!
The net result is a collection of chemicals that are able to store the energy {redistribute it to useful life processes} but only for limited time.
Just as when a tree collects minute energy from the sun (compared to the source) and builds on it to grow. Other consumers then utilise the stored energy as you move from one trophic level to next, at a depletion rate of about 10% to the next level.
Important bit.......
You "feel" there is some distinction between "living" and "non-living"...
The only distinction is that the living matter is non-living matter that is animated by virtue of being part of a chemical reaction. In your body there are elements found in the ground... not different elements. They react the same, crystalize the same and are not "living", whether in you or not.
"life" is a condition, a process... you can not talk of chemicals as alive or dead... only the 'process' as being ongoing {alive} or terminated {dead}........... or paused {coma}.
So it is with great regret that I must inform you that you are not "alive".
You are a bunch of chemicals, no more "alive" than any other reaction. You gain energy from oxidation of glucose slowed stepwise by enzymes. All the chemical reactions have physical foundations... none spiritual. In fact there is no spirit.
Your "non-living" things.... notice your term... things!
You are comfortable with your definition of life as MRSGREN perhaps. But the fact remains that all of these things are explainable using biochemistry, and ultimately physics.
I'll tell you what I see as a non-believer in a god/spirit {meaning I know there is no such thing}.....
You as a believer, trivialise this life we have, these bodies we live in are regarded by you as nothings, mere vessels for transporting the 'soul' to where and for what purpose you seem to make up as you go. (in terms of all faiths, not just you personally).
To this end, religion belittles life and us all, relegating it to near uselessness and not worthy of care. It's no wonder we have so many suicide terrorists, off on a mission to see god.
On the other hand we have atheists who love their bodies & lives because that's all we've got and all we ever will have.... so live this life; it is precious!
Griff... "Cease the day!"..... Dead Poet's Society.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I'm living proof that it does.
I can't agree. It is because of this "quarrel" that humanity has gained so many insights. Many of our greatest discoveries have not been readily accepted at first. It took some "quarrel", dispute and ego. However, the strength of science, logic and reason will lead most to a consensus. It is for this reason we no longer quarrel about the structure of matter, heliocentrism, radio waves, the solar wind, etc., etc..
I think you bury your head in the sand cronk. It's a comfortable place but there is nothing to be found there. Truth does not always come easy.
polaristutoring,
There is no fundamental difference between living and non-living.
They are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
In the middle there is no sense in which you can say that the thing is living or non-living.
When does a child become an adolescent?
There is no fundamental difference between living and non-living.
They are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
In the middle there is no sense in which you can say that the thing is living or non-living.
When does a child become an adolescent?
PrincessIneffabelle
I'm not godless, I'm god-free
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,417
vexed
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 314
First of all, if you call it a 'belief system' you had a religion = theists, which is NOT atheism.
Your hypothetical statement is rather absurd, and wouldn't the makers of m&m's feel a little silly, making them all these years while they've been produced naturally by nature for billions of years...
I would say someone had put the m&m's there.
rcronk said:
If this hypothetical incident was happening, it sounds like you would be breaking and entering, a crime in most places on Earth.
How does one logically compare organic organisms (things that have 'life') to inanimate objects. If we stopped all computer technology today (as in nobody worked on making faster CPU's, more efficient OS's, etc) in a million years the PC's would not be any faster or have new operating systems, they wouldn't mutate to form new typee of hardware/software (because computers DO NOT breed-F.Y.I.).
Surprised the "banana argument" wasn't introduced.
Respectively,
Vexed
wolfgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 1,375
It seems to me that this argument supports the atheistic viewpoint more than the religious one.
Children only see the "evidence" of these mythological beings but lack the understanding to explain them via natural means. Once they are old enough to start questioning the reality, such as could someone really fly around the world in one night and carry gifts for all the kids, etc., they realize that what they thought was supernatural has a completely natural explanation...their parents.
Humans once saw "evidence" of a mythological being they called various names and thought of as gods. This "evidence" was things like the sun rising and setting, thunder and lightning, crop failures, plague and disease, etc. Lacking the necessary knowledge to understand these things, they created gods to explain them. Once they were advanced enough, they understood that these things all had natural explanations.
Much like children growing up and letting go of the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy once they understood the natural explanations for them, we need to grow up and let go of the idea of gods.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I don't think cronk is going to see it but great post. Spot on.
By that definition is a virus alive? A prion?
I said adolescence, not teenagerhood.
Last edited: