posted
Ok, being pretty agnostic myself I don't know all the much about Mormonism, but I kind of do have an interest in knowing just a little about all religions.
I heard a bit about the story of Joseph Smith. A lot of people think the story discredits the Book of Mormon and makes it pretty hard to believe that it is genuine.
I was just wondering what is the Mormon response to such skeptics (other then that they're entitled to their own beliefs,) and what is the churches rebuttal of the arguments such as - no one but Joseph Smith saw the gold plates - that Joseph Smith read the book of Mormon out of a hat in two diffent ways (suggesting he was just telling the story rather then reading it,) and - that if the book is to be taken as a historical account it is inconsistant with accepted (some may say proven) facts.
Please don't get me wrong here, I respect everyone's right to their beliefs and I ask this merely out of interest and not to offend any Mormons here.
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as our church history goes, #1 is outright false. Just read about 3 pages into the Book of Mormon (The actual introduction) and you'll see a list of 11 people who saw the plates.
#2 - Dunno. I've heard the hat thing, but not from any credible sources.
#3 - Two points, number one, you must list said "facts" in order for me to determine if this claim is true. Number two, historical evidence can rarely "prove" anything about history.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you like learning you could also try reading the book (or parts of the book if you don't want to invest the time to read the whole thing). Get a grasp of what the Book of Mormon is about and also the Bible if you haven't already and then you have a grasp of what the church is about.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:- no one but Joseph Smith saw the gold plates
Him and eleven other witnesses whose testimonies are recorded in the front of the book.
quote:- that Joseph Smith read the book of Mormon out of a hat in two diffent ways (suggesting he was just telling the story rather then reading it,)
I'm not sure which "two different ways" you're talking about or what bearing they have on the provenance of the book. Joseph Smith's internal process is described in the Doctrine and Covenants as one of intense concentration, pondering, and prayer. Whatever that looked like to an outside observer ... [shrug]
quote:- that if the book is to be taken as a historical account it is inconsistant with accepted (some may say proven) facts.
It is inconsistent with some people's assumptions, perhaps, but there are not enough facts known through mesoamerican archaeology or any other means to prove OR disprove the book. It's still a matter of faith however you look at it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: To give you the short answers ...
quote:- no one but Joseph Smith saw the gold plates
Him and eleven other witnesses whose testimonies are recorded in the front of the book.
quote:- that Joseph Smith read the book of Mormon out of a hat in two diffent ways (suggesting he was just telling the story rather then reading it,)
I'm not sure which "two different ways" you're talking about or what bearing they have on the provenance of the book. Joseph Smith's internal process is described in the Doctrine and Covenants as one of intense concentration, pondering, and prayer. Whatever that looked like to an outside observer ... [shrug]
quote:- that if the book is to be taken as a historical account it is inconsistant with accepted (some may say proven) facts.
It is inconsistent with some people's assumptions, perhaps, but there are not enough facts known through mesoamerican archaeology or any other means to prove OR disprove the book. It's still a matter of faith however you look at it.
i dont know about your statement about there not being enough facts known through mesoamerican archeology, because it is my understanding that there is an overwhelming number of facts to discredit any literal interpretation of mormon faith, i mean come on, israeili native americans???! and as for Smith and 11 others seeing the tablets, well that still seems like a little bit shaky ground to base a religion on, its not as if ppl have ever lied in groups, or been manipulated by a ring leader in to believing ridiculous things.
im all for religious FAITH, but it should be left at that, and should not try to be rationalized, because rational religion is frankly an oxymoron
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: im all for religious FAITH, but it should be left at that, and should not try to be rationalized, because rational religion is frankly an oxymoron
Please explain how rational religion is an oxymoron.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:i dont know about your statement about there not being enough facts known through mesoamerican archeology, because it is my understanding that there is an overwhelming number of facts to discredit any literal interpretation of mormon faith
Since the Book of Mormon depicts a relatively small nation within the larger setting of ancient America, there is still plenty of room for its events to have taken place within the archaeological history that we recognize. Now, if you take the most literal, word-by-word interpretation with the express purpose of disproving the book, I'm sure you can do so to your own satisfaction, but if you are in any way reasonable, there is still plenty of room for the book to agree with the archaeological record.
quote:and as for Smith and 11 others seeing the tablets, well that still seems like a little bit shaky ground to base a religion on
Our whole religion isn't based on just the event of those witnesses seeing the golden plates. I mean, come on. And if a small group of people having a series of intense spiritual experiences and spreading their beliefs and experiences quickly to a society of millions DOESN'T sound like decent grounds for a religion to you, I can't think of a modern religion that would qualify.
quote:im all for religious FAITH, but it should be left at that, and should not try to be rationalized, because rational religion is frankly an oxymoron
In other words, you're uncomfortable dealing with religious people who are rational and articulate? Aw, I'm sorry. Does it make it harder to write them off?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i dont have to be uncomfortable, because where as you all might be rational (i never said anything about being or not being articulate) concerning everything else in your lives, you are not with regards to religious beliefs. i really shouldn't have to explain what is irrational about religious belief, but i will if i have to. for one, not one of you attributes the same level of rational skepticism to your ideologiacl beliefs that you do to every days thoughts and beliefs. if i told you there was a cow floating in the sky, you would say, no there isn't, there is no evidence to support that claim, you are crazy. but, if i were to tell you that there is a god (a claim with lots of relevant similarities to the previous one) i would get no argument. religious beliefs are not based on reason, experience, or empiricism, and as such, they are NOT rational.
for a quick definition of what "rational" is, i went to dictionary.com, and got "Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." please tell me how religious faith is based on reason or logic?
notice that all i said was that religious beliefs weren't rational, i didn't say that they were bad or people shouldn't have them, i am just saying that when you have beliefs like that, you have to be sure to seperate them from the rational things you believe, and agknowledge that faith does not equal reason. i myself have certain ideological beliefs that i can't explain or rationalize, and i am aware of that fact, but that doesn't mean i am going to abandon them altogether, i'm just going to make sure that i don't let my opinions of things that are rational be influenced by my faith.
i actually love debating religous faith and rationality, and im sorry if my original post came off as adversarial, i thought what i was saying was something that would be taken as a given fact, but i welcome further debate on the issue
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make open mockery of someone's faith then say "im sorry if my original post came off as adversarial"?
That's like slapping someone in the face and then saying "I'm ready to have a heart-to-heart discussion now."
I'm not even going to begin to explain how spirituality relies on tools that go beyond what you can see, hear or base on logic. That form of arrogance denies any opportunity to see anything beyond one's own nose. Since you seem to think faith and rationality are two separate things, I doubt any argument or debate will serve any purpose other than provide more ammunition for your narrow-minded opinions.
Antony:
Check out the church's website if you want basic doctrinal information; everything you were told is either untrue or downright garbage.
posted
I am not a Mormon, but I do believe in the Bible as the word of God, and I believe in Jesus as the son of God.
People who believe blindly are fools. I would never dream of asking anyone else to simply throw away their brain in order to believe in God.
Perhaps you have not considered that there is more than one possible worldview. For example, to my way of thinking, evolution is a religion. People who belong to that religion have to accept on faith that their theories are correct without any actual proof. It just so happens that evolution is the popular religion these days, with many people on the bandwagon, so it is much easier to not question your beliefs and go along with the majority.
Scripture even tells us to question things, not just believe them without thinking about it. We are to know why we believe.
As far as evidence that the Book of Mormon is correct, I am not going to comment on that because I have done no research and I detest spouting off about things in which I am not well versed. But I do believe that there is evidence that the Bible is true. Many people over time have set out to prove that the Bible is not a factual account. Not one has actually succeeded. There is archealogical evidence that has recently come to light that certain documented events in the Bible may have actually left evidence behind in the very rocks and seas.
But to sum up, I feel that everyone believes in something, whether that something is God, is evolution, or is the belief that there are no absolutes. Most do so on blind faith. Every person needs to know for themselves WHY they believe what they do, not just because it is politically correct, or the current fad, or because they just assume it to be so.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clarifier, For some people it may be true that religion is not rational. Some people will blindly follow their faith without every questioning or proving to themselves the reason for their beliefs. However, that is definitely not the case for everyone.
But what really is faith? Faith is not synonymous with religion because EVERY belief in life, whether religious or scientific, is based on faith. Science is based on faith just as much as religious is. In fact, I would say that science is just another type of religion. The reason is because science cannot definitively prove one single thing. Science is nothing more than using our limited knowledge and crude resources to make sense of the things around us.
Can we possibly understand how anything in the universe works? We think we can because we can make predictions based on mathematical calculations. But those are all based on previous assumptions. Assumptions that we believe are true. But how do we know those assumptions are correct? We don't, so it takes faith to tust those assumptions. Assumptions that are the basis of every form of science today.
Scientists gather scant amounts of evidence, arrange it in a way that makes sense to them, and then create a story to connect the pieces. They then declare it a theory, study it, find that with their limited resources and understanding are unable to prove it false, gather support from other scientists that were able to piece the puzzle together in the same way and then declare the scientific process a success by declaring as fact the finished puzzle. Never do they realize that each piece of the puzzle is built on the same false assurances that inspire confidence in them. They try not to think about how if one little assumption proves to be inaccurate, that the whole puzzle will fall apart. The puzzle is held together by faith. Faith that their observences, calculations, and perceptions are correct.
The only difference between "rational" science and faith is that science is based on mankind's ego, believing they have all the answers, where religion is based on humility, believing that mankind doesn't have all the answers.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by R. Ann Dryden: I am not a Mormon, but I do believe in the Bible as the word of God, and I believe in Jesus as the son of God.
People who believe blindly are fools. I would never dream of asking anyone else to simply throw away their brain in order to believe in God.
Perhaps you have not considered that there is more than one possible worldview. For example, to my way of thinking, evolution is a religion. People who belong to that religion have to accept on faith that their theories are correct without any actual proof. It just so happens that evolution is the popular religion these days, with many people on the bandwagon, so it is much easier to not question your beliefs and go along with the majority.
Scripture even tells us to question things, not just believe them without thinking about it. We are to know why we believe.
As far as evidence that the Book of Mormon is correct, I am not going to comment on that because I have done no research and I detest spouting off about things in which I am not well versed. But I do believe that there is evidence that the Bible is true. Many people over time have set out to prove that the Bible is not a factual account. Not one has actually succeeded. There is archealogical evidence that has recently come to light that certain documented events in the Bible may have actually left evidence behind in the very rocks and seas.
But to sum up, I feel that everyone believes in something, whether that something is God, is evolution, or is the belief that there are no absolutes. Most do so on blind faith. Every person needs to know for themselves WHY they believe what they do, not just because it is politically correct, or the current fad, or because they just assume it to be so.
to imply that evolution is the popualr religion today, because people believe in it wihtout evidence to support that belief if just plain ignorant. there is a vast amount of evidence to support darwin's theory of evolution, where are there is no evidence to support actual religions, such as christianity. As for proving that the bible isnt actually a factual account of history, that HAS been proven. look up something called "the Jesus Seminar". a group of many theologians and historians got together a whil ago, adn for 20 years, they meticulously went through every single verse of the new testament, examining the book for its historical accuracy. at the end, they wrote a book called "what jesus did", and they colour coated the entire new testament for varying levels of historical accuracy. in short, the only things that they discovered to have "most likely happened" are that jesus was a man, his profession was that of a healer, and he was crucified. EVERYTHING else either was unlikely, or mostl likely didnt happen, this includes all the christian propaganda (such as jesus' interview with pilot and herod, which was designed to fullfil a prophecy from the psalms and promote the roman integration into christianity, by placing the blame on the jews for his death), as well as jesus' proclamationt hat he was the son of god. im sorry, but it never happened. the new testament was writen 100-300 eyars after jesus' actual death, by people who were not actually there, with the purpose of furthering their own agendas involving christianity. all that is accepted as historical fact
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Clarifier, For some people it may be true that religion is not rational. Some people will blindly follow their faith without every questioning or proving to themselves the reason for their beliefs. However, that is definitely not the case for everyone.
But what really is faith? Faith is not synonymous with religion because EVERY belief in life, whether religious or scientific, is based on faith. Science is based on faith just as much as religious is. In fact, I would say that science is just another type of religion. The reason is because science cannot definitively prove one single thing. Science is nothing more than using our limited knowledge and crude resources to make sense of the things around us.
Can we possibly understand how anything in the universe works? We think we can because we can make predictions based on mathematical calculations. But those are all based on previous assumptions. Assumptions that we believe are true. But how do we know those assumptions are correct? We don't, so it takes faith to tust those assumptions. Assumptions that are the basis of every form of science today.
Scientists gather scant amounts of evidence, arrange it in a way that makes sense to them, and then create a story to connect the pieces. They then declare it a theory, study it, find that with their limited resources and understanding are unable to prove it false, gather support from other scientists that were able to piece the puzzle together in the same way and then declare the scientific process a success by declaring as fact the finished puzzle. Never do they realize that each piece of the puzzle is built on the same false assurances that inspire confidence in them. They try not to think about how if one little assumption proves to be inaccurate, that the whole puzzle will fall apart. The puzzle is held together by faith. Faith that their observences, calculations, and perceptions are correct.
The only difference between "rational" science and faith is that science is based on mankind's ego, believing they have all the answers, where religion is based on humility, believing that mankind doesn't have all the answers.
science is not based on faith, because unlike a religious belief, a scientific belief can always be changed when new evidence is found. and yes, science cannot absolutely prove anything, but by pointing this out, you are not detracting from science, becaue hypo-inductive falsifiability is one of the main principles of science (see Khun). nothing can be proven absolutely, but we can gather alot of evidence for something, and then if we can all agree (another principle of science) then we accept said thing as fact until a better explanation presents itself. We do not claim to have all the answers, but we are doing the best we can to come close to some of them, and by using the empirical/observational method, the only one that follows reason and rationalism.
you say that scientists gather scant amounts of evidence and create stories to explain things, well thats not completely true (the scant part at least), but at least we gather evidence, becasue religous people gather no evidence at all and then make all encompassing stories to explain just about everything, most of which is completely beyond our perception. so yes, the "puzzle" we make is held togetehr by faith, but not blind faith, because it is faith in the empirical method, and not in an imaginary diety, or a hoodlum who was crucified (along with the hundreds of others who were every year in that time).
you say: "The only difference between "rational" science and faith is that science is based on mankind's ego, believing they have all the answers, where religion is based on humility, believing that mankind doesn't have all the answers."
haha, the thing is, science knows it doesnt have all the answers, it knows that we most likely will never have all teh answers, but that doesnt meant that we shouldnt try to find them, and as for religion, it seems as if it is teh egotistical one, becasue whenever anyone attacks it, it simply falls back on its fallacious arguments and notions of "blind faith" that are completely ridiculous.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:science is not based on faith, because unlike a religious belief, a scientific belief can always be changed when new evidence is found.
See, this is one of the reasons why I consider my faith to be one of the more rational ones available We DO believe that people should seek knowledge from every source they can. We believe that our current understanding is imperfect, and that later discoveries (through revelation or through study of the natural world) could very easily alter our perspectives.
While many Mormons reject evolution for personal reasons, for instance, the Church itself has no official stance on the subject beyond the assertion that mankind was created by God to be His children. The "how" of it all is left undefined, which gives Mormons like me the freedom to accept evolution as the simplest and most elegant means that might have been used to create the species of the earth, including our own physical selves.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here about the nature of faith. In Mormon philosophy, faith is by its very nature provisional. Alma teaches in the Book of Mormon that when you have a perfect knowledge of a fact, you no longer have faith in that thing (or to use his words, "your faith is dormant") because the word "faith" represents the provisional acceptance of an unproven idea as truth.
So, for instance, I have faith that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be — an account of the spiritual journey of a nation of people that actually existed in the Americas two thousand years ago. I can't prove this, either to myself or to anyone else, but I accept it on faith because my subjective personal spiritual experiences have led me to trust the book and its teachings. I recognize that faith is not a perfect knowledge, and so I don't pretend that I "know" this the way I am certain of my own existence. But I "know" it with enough certainty that I can confidently live by its precepts and essentially run my life as though the book is true.
Alma taught that faith should be a process of constant exploration and testing of an idea. I accept Mormonism on faith, but that faith only grows as my experience living by the teachings of my religion expand my mind and improve my life and my self. If I attempt to live an idea and prove it out, and it FAILS, then again, as Alma teaches, it must be a bad or false idea, and I need to throw it out.
Thus far, my faith in Mormonism has only been rewarding (or in the cases where something was difficult, I considered it to be reasonable or worthwhile), and therefore, I will continue to trust it and live according to its teachings. Since I do not try to claim that these things are provable, or that they should be accepted universally on the same bases as scientific discoveries, I fail to see why anyone would consider this less than rational.
Unless by "rational" you mean "rejecting every unproven idea outright until someone else proves it for you". I personally like to explore compelling hypotheses myself ...
posted
You seem to assume that if a person is religious, then they must be guided by blind faith. You can't possibly comprehend that a person could analyze the evidence he has available to him and still choose religion. You want to believe that by living your life guided by rational science, you are not ignorant, like all the religious masses around you. Well, let's look at some of you educated, rational ideas.
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: a scientific belief can always be changed when new evidence is found...then we accept said thing as fact until a better explanation presents itself.
You admit that something cannot be proven absolutely, yet you choose to believe it anyway. That is the essence of faith.
quote: becasue religous people gather no evidence at all and then make all encompassing stories to explain just about everything, most of which is completely beyond our perception.
Once again you're categorizing all religous people into a construct that you have created in your mind as to how a religious person thinks.
quote:science knows it doesnt have all the answers, it knows that we most likely will never have all teh answers, but that doesnt meant that we shouldnt try to find them
It's good to try to find answers, but it's bad to assume that if someone believes something other than your conclusions, they must be wrong, ignorant, and blind.
quote: EVERYTHING else either was unlikely, or mostl likely didnt happen
So because of group of people decided something was unlikely to happen, then it must not have happened? I think a lot of people would agree that life was "unlikely" to happen by chance, so according to your philosophy, we must not be here discussing this right now because it's unlikely that we evolved in the first place.
quote:the new testament was writen 100-300 eyars after jesus' actual death
Something that can't be proven either. So you're using lack of proof as a proof that something didn't happen? Who's naive?
quote:people believe in it wihtout evidence to support that belief...there is no evidence to support actual religions
What if the evidence was everywhere around you, but you just failed to recognize what it was? What if you misinterpreted the biggest proof that there was a god by creating a story to fit what you wanted to believe based on evidence that could be interpreted many different ways?
You can't prove that God doesn't exist. So there's no reason for you to disount the possibility that there is a God. And don't forget the possibility that science actually supports the belief in God, not disproves it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for proving that the bible isnt actually a factual account of history, that HAS been proven. look up something called "the Jesus Seminar". a group of many theologians and historians got together a whil ago, adn for 20 years, they meticulously went through every single verse of the new testament, examining the book for its historical accuracy. at the end, they wrote a book called "what jesus did", and they colour coated the entire new testament for varying levels of historical accuracy. in short, the only things that they discovered to have "most likely happened" are that jesus was a man, his profession was that of a healer, and he was crucified. EVERYTHING else either was unlikely, or mostl likely didnt happen, this includes all the christian propaganda (such as jesus' interview with pilot and herod, which was designed to fullfil a prophecy from the psalms and promote the roman integration into christianity, by placing the blame on the jews for his death), as well as jesus' proclamationt hat he was the son of god. im sorry, but it never happened. the new testament was writen 100-300 eyars after jesus' actual death, by people who were not actually there, with the purpose of furthering their own agendas involving christianity. all that is accepted as historical fact
You left out the part where the Jesus Seminar's conclusions have not exactly been accepted as historical orthodoxy. Frankly, it's impossible to judge what exactly happened in the life of Jesus, and the Jesus Seminar did a good bit of, "Well, his conversation with Pilate could be interpreted as fitting with that Old Testament prophecy, so it must have been made up to do so." That is, they interpreted a lot. Despite this, their work was high quality, but, as with a good deal of ancient history, is hardly conclusive. Your description of the Seminar is also misleading; it's still ongoing, and is more of an ongoing academic conference than a monolithic twenty-year-long project.
Your dates for the writing of the New Testament are also wrong. The best dates we have for Mark (the earliest of the gospels) put it anywhere from 65-100 AD.
As to Joseph Smith.
-11 people other than Joseph Smith claimed to have seen the plates. All ended up leaving the church, but none ever denied seeing them. This would tend to discredit the conspiracy theory.
quote:or been manipulated by a ring leader in to believing ridiculous things.
That was Fawn Brodie's theory - that Smith somehow hypnotized the witnesses to the plates. She was a very good writer, but couldn't bring that one off without sounding slightly ridiculous.
-There are a couple of witnesses to the translation process (including his wife) that describe Smith with his face in a hat (to shut out the light), staring at a seer stone and dictating the Book of Mormon. I'll set aside the fact that _dictating_ without actually looking at the plates is a lot harder (if you want to argue that he made the thing up out of his head) than reading from a written source, and deal with the whole seer stone idea itself.
It's easy for us to look back and say, wow, that's crazy, but frankly, that's projecting our own twentieth-century, rationalist assumptions about what an experience with the divine should be. It seems silly to us that nineteenth-century Americans believed in things like dowsing and astrology, and further, that they didn't see these things as incompatible with interacting with the divine. Unfortunately that makes it it easy for to dismiss their religious claims without having to worry about understanding where they were coming from. We can just say, whoa, Joseph Smith wasre weird, and not bother with trying to deal with what he produced.
-As to the third point, I'll just quote Geoff again.
quote:Since the Book of Mormon depicts a relatively small nation within the larger setting of ancient America, there is still plenty of room for its events to have taken place within the archaeological history that we recognize. Now, if you take the most literal, word-by-word interpretation with the express purpose of disproving the book, I'm sure you can do so to your own satisfaction, but if you are in any way reasonable, there is still plenty of room for the book to agree with the archaeological record
posted
Yeah, the whole "Jesus Seminar" thing is hilarious. If you take as one of your premises that prophecy is untrue and miracles are impossible, it's pretty easy to predict what your conclusions about the Bible will be Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me as similar to the guy doing card guessing experiments in ESP. The guy threw out anyone who guessed to few correctly because they must have been able to tell what cards they were and missed on purpose to mess him up.
In other words, he chopped the left tail off the distribution curve and showed how people in general guessed better than probability would predict.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You can't prove that God doesn't exist. So there's no reason for you to disount the possibility that there is a God. And don't forget the possibility that science actually supports the belief in God, not disproves it. "
do i have to point out that this is an argument from ignorance, and it does not follow in any logical manner. and no, science doesn't support god's existence, unless you are talking about special creation theory, which is pseudo-science at best, and totally fallacious
"Your dates for the writing of the New Testament are also wrong. The best dates we have for Mark (the earliest of the gospels) put it anywhere from 65-100 AD."
yes, Mark worte around then, but the others, who were influenced by mark in their writingm, wrote as much as 300 years later, if you had read the work of the jesus seminar closely, you would know this.
look, there's obviously no point in continuing this discussion, you are not going to change your opinion and im not going to change mine. that's ok, because just recently i read in the globe and mail (a toronto paper) that if secularism was considered a religious denomination, it would be the fastest growing of all religons (currently 17% of north america now calls themselves secular). so give or take a few more years, and i wont have to deal with any of you guys anymore, and the world will have completely awoken to rationalism. no one can for one second ever state that a religous belief is rational, period. you can disguise your ignorance with flowery words, but that doesnt make you write. Im sure you are all very smart people, and you are extremely literate and informed about world issues etc, but when it comes to religion, i have no problem grouping you all into one classification, and that is the classification of ignorant irrationalism.
oh, heres a fun question. i was reading over some Rousseau the other day, and he presents a pretty interesting argument against religious beliefs, it is one of socio-geographical nature. basically, his argument is this: if you are born in rome, then you will most likely be a catholic, but if you are born in mecca, then you will most likely be muslim. the exact same person, merely transposed a few thousand killometers will have almost opposite ideological beliefs, therefore, no one can truly claim that their religious beliefs are sincere, for they would be saying the opposite if they were born somehwere else.
i think this is of special importance to those religions that indoctrinate their youth into them, such as mormanism. not only would you have a completely different religion (if any) if you were born somewhere else, but if you had been born even a few killometers away, where you weren't raised to hold the beliefs you so strongly defend today, you wouldnt have them!
the only way i see around this attack is if you converted to mormanism from another upbringing. otherwize, your entire worldview and ideological web of belief are simply products of your social and geographical situations, not your true feelings.
personaly, i like this argument, but i think that its a tricky one, because it can be used back against me (i was raised catholic but never really believed in it, and in my teens decided i was an atheist). one could argue that by the same logic, if i had been raised in a hyper traditional religous family, i would not have ever doubted my faith, and probably would not be an atheist today. however, where as the counterargument agaist me simply asserts that i might not have come to the rational conclusion i did come to, and would have blindly believed an irrational religion simply because of my upbringing, the argument agaisnt you guys is that you do mindlessly believe what you were taught. how would you respond?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Yeah, the whole "Jesus Seminar" thing is hilarious. If you take as one of your premises that prophecy is untrue and miracles are impossible, it's pretty easy to predict what your conclusions about the Bible will be
and if you start with the premise that prophecy is true and miracles are possible, then you're an idiot Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, from light joking to name-calling, and so quickly I can tell this is going to be a grown-up discussion.
I'm taking nothing outlandish for granted. I believe in prophecy and miracles because of convincing personal experience and testimony of people I trust. It's not a reason for you to accept my beliefs, but it is a reason for ME to have them.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the only way i see around this attack is if you converted to mormanism from another upbringing. otherwize, your entire worldview and ideological web of belief are simply products of your social and geographical situations, not your true feelings.
It may be impossible in this case for other people to be sure of your motivations. But faith isn't about what other people think. I know why I believe what I believe. I started down this path because of my upbringing, but I stayed for my own reasons. The conscious choice to stay is no less legitimate than the conscious choice to leave.
quote:so give or take a few more years, and i wont have to deal with any of you guys anymore
Is it really that difficult for you to "deal with" the fact that other people have different experiences from you, and believe different things? I don't have any problem getting along with people who disagree with me ... what makes it so difficult for you?
quote:you can disguise your ignorance with flowery words, but that doesnt make you write.
[chuckle] Not all of us are equally good at disguising our ignorance, apparently Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You left out the part where the Jesus Seminar's conclusions have not exactly been accepted as historical orthodoxy"
one more thing, if its not accepted as historical orthodoxy, or as close to that as you can get, then why was it taught in a religous studies class under a professor who graduated from religous studies at harvard with a phd?
also, it might not be absolutely conclusive, but it is the most probable account of what actually happened, based on the evidence that we have, as oposed to a literal interpretation of scripture, which is based on its own existence as evidence.
study of ancient text is not impossible, its just hard, and has to be done carefully. for example, in studying genesis, we asked the question: who wrote genesis? some believe it was divine relevation to moses, but then why is god called by 4 different names in the first few chapters? (YHWH, elohim, jehova, etc..), y does the tone of genesis change dramatically almost instantaneously, and why are there so many parallels between the genesis creation story and babylonian and other pre-christian creation stories? the most obvious answer (occams razor eliminates divine intervention and the existence of a diety to explain what we can easily explain with reason) is that there were several (as many as 4) authors to genesis, and that the entire premise of monotheistic christian faith was "borrowed" from earlier religons and ideologies.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the only way i see around this attack is if you converted to mormanism from another upbringing. otherwize, your entire worldview and ideological web of belief are simply products of your social and geographical situations, not your true feelings.
It may be impossible in this case for other people to be sure of your motivations. But faith isn't about what other people think. I know why I believe what I believe. I started down this path because of my upbringing, but I stayed for my own reasons. The conscious choice to stay is no less legitimate than the conscious choice to leave.
quote:so give or take a few more years, and i wont have to deal with any of you guys anymore
Is it really that difficult for you to "deal with" the fact that other people have different experiences from you, and believe different things? I don't have any problem getting along with people who disagree with me ... what makes it so difficult for you?
quote:you can disguise your ignorance with flowery words, but that doesnt make you write.
[chuckle] Not all of us are equally good at disguising our ignorance, apparently
i have no problem dealing with religous people, infact, many of my close friends are religous. i do have a problem dealing with religious people who are ignorant regarding their own faith, and who do not recognize that their beliefs do not concord with rational thought.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It may be impossible in this case for other people to be sure of your motivations. But faith isn't about what other people think. I know why I believe what I believe. I started down this path because of my upbringing, but I stayed for my own reasons. The conscious choice to stay is no less legitimate than the conscious choice to leave."
the whole point of the argument is that it is more than a concsious choice, it is an ingrained bias, and not a sincere belief. you stayed because thats what you were taught, and you are afraid to face the world without your precious crutch
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:yes, Mark worte around then, but the others, who were influenced by mark in their writingm, wrote as much as 300 years later, if you had read the work of the jesus seminar closely, you would know this.
Who are these "others"? Look, Mark was written first, and actually, I was being conservative in my dating; most scholars place him around 70 AD. The other two synoptic gospels borrow from him and possibly the Q source. They're being cited by church fathers around 100 AD. John may be as late as 120 or so, but he appears in early apology by that point as well. Paul (who was a real person, thanks) wrote most of his letters in this same period. I think you're confusing the period of New Testament composition with the period when Irenaeus was synthesizing the Bible, which was closer to the time you cite.
quote:therefore, no one can truly claim that their religious beliefs are sincere, for they would be saying the opposite if they were born somehwere else.
I fail to see how this disproves religion. At most, it's an argument about why people believe, not about the veracity of religion.
quote:if i had been raised in a hyper traditional religous family, i would not have ever doubted my faith, and probably would not be an atheist today.
Yes, because the children of the "hyper-religious" never question their parents' faith.
quote:the argument agaisnt you guys is that you do mindlessly believe what you were taught. how would you respond?
Unfortunately for your theory, I was raised Mormon, but haven't been practicing that or any religion for nearly a decade. How do you explain me?
quote:that's ok, because just recently i read in the globe and mail (a toronto paper) that if secularism was considered a religious denomination, it would be the fastest growing of all religons (currently 17% of north america now calls themselves secular). so give or take a few more years, and i wont have to deal with any of you guys anymore
A few years? Tell you what, I'll bet you ten bucks religion is still around in 2010.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
man u guys are hopeless.. but as i said, at least i wont have to deal with such irrationality and ignorance soon (just to rebut your rebuttals, i was raised christian, so i have your perspective, but you have none of mine, so who is truly igorant?)
yeah im done here, im so tired of pointing out all your fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning. peace out playas
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:also, it might not be absolutely conclusive, but it is the most probable account of what actually happened, based on the evidence that we have, as oposed to a literal interpretation of scripture, which is based on its own existence as evidence.
So essentially, you're saying that this seminar highlighted the only portions of the New Testment that could be verified through other sources, like Josephus, or archaeology, am I right? Well, then, yeah, duh. The Bible IS the only source for a lot of its content. That's not really news.
The fact that you think this should disprove people's faith is pretty funny, though You also seem to place a level of trust in your professor and his opinions that most people only reserve for priests
quote:why is god called by 4 different names in the first few chapters?
You could ask any Russian novelist the same thing I'll bet that Moses wrote a version of Genesis, but that our modern book is an amalgam of a lot of different sources, including his. I mean, he's credited with Deuteronomy, too, and he DIES in that book, so clearly there were multiple contributors Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:man u guys are hopeless.. but as i said, at least i wont have to deal with such irrationality and ignorance soon (just to rebut your rebuttals, i was raised christian, so i have your perspective, but you have none of mine, so who is truly igorant?)
yeah im done here, im so tired of pointing out all your fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning. peace out playas
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Awesome. Yeah, you did a GREAT job of putting our fallacious arguments to rest I'm sure everyone knows who's igorant now.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:yes, Mark worte around then, but the others, who were influenced by mark in their writingm, wrote as much as 300 years later, if you had read the work of the jesus seminar closely, you would know this.
Who are these "others"? Look, Mark was written first, and actually, I was being conservative in my dating; most scholars place him around 70 AD. The other two synoptic gospels borrow from him and possibly the Q source. They're being cited by church fathers around 100 AD. John may be as late as 120 or so, but he appears in early apology by that point as well. Paul (who was a real person, thanks) wrote most of his letters in this same period. I think you're confusing the period of New Testament composition with the period when Irenaeus was synthesizing the Bible, which was closer to the time you cite.
quote:therefore, no one can truly claim that their religious beliefs are sincere, for they would be saying the opposite if they were born somehwere else.
I fail to see how this disproves religion. At most, it's an argument about why people believe, not about the veracity of religion.
quote:if i had been raised in a hyper traditional religous family, i would not have ever doubted my faith, and probably would not be an atheist today.
Yes, because the children of the "hyper-religious" never question their parents' faith.
quote:the argument agaisnt you guys is that you do mindlessly believe what you were taught. how would you respond?
Unfortunately for your theory, I was raised Mormon, but haven't been practicing that or any religion for nearly a decade. How do you explain me?
quote:that's ok, because just recently i read in the globe and mail (a toronto paper) that if secularism was considered a religious denomination, it would be the fastest growing of all religons (currently 17% of north america now calls themselves secular). so give or take a few more years, and i wont have to deal with any of you guys anymore
A few years? Tell you what, I'll bet you ten bucks religion is still around in 2010.
ok last post for real. obviously the fine art of sarcasm is lost on you
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'll tell you what. If you learn to question what you learn in school at least as much as you expect other people to question their own beliefs, I'll be totally satisfied. Ask questions like, "Does this process ACTUALLY prove anything about the Bible beyond the participants' own premises?" or "Is there a reason to draw THIS conclusion from THIS evidence, beyond the fact that my professor says so?"
You'll probably be surprised at the answers you get You won't change your position this way or anything, of course, and I don't intend you to. But maybe you'll realize that your smug stance actually makes you look LESS rational and LESS informed than your believing opposition.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:one more thing, if its not accepted as istorical orthodoxy, or as close to that as you can get, then why was it taught in a religous studies class under a professor who graduated from religous studies at harvard with a phd?
Appeal to authority. That's a fallacy, my friend.
quote:study of ancient text is not impossible, its just hard, and has to be done carefully. for example, in studying genesis, we asked the question: who wrote genesis? some believe it was divine relevation to moses, but then why is god called by 4 different names in the first few chapters? (YHWH, elohim, jehova, etc..), y does the tone of genesis change dramatically almost instantaneously, and why are there so many parallels between the genesis creation story and babylonian and other pre-christian creation stories?
Now you're assuming that literal biblical inerrancy is a fundamental of Christianity.
quote:Originally posted by Clarifier: man u guys are hopeless.. but as i said, at least i wont have to deal with such irrationality and ignorance soon (just to rebut your rebuttals, i was raised christian, so i have your perspective, but you have none of mine, so who is truly igorant?)
yeah im done here, im so tired of pointing out all your fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning. peace out playas
I've always thought that the first person to get tired of talking about a certain subject because people won't listen is the person who has done the least research. A religious studies professor at Harvard (of all places) is hardly enough to prove that something is correct. It's not like it's impossible to teach things that aren't true in college, or public schools, or any other place of learning. Why would someone do that? Maybe because they think they are so absolutely right and better than anyone else that they just have to correct all of the ignorant people out there...Oh wait. That's you! HA! Sorry. Didn't mean to draw any parallels or anything.
But come on, keep trying, don't give up. Us ignorant religious fools are hard to correct, because we've been brainwashed for so long that we can't possibly understand rational thought. But I know you can convince us with just a little more effort (No, you can't, actually. It's just so amusing to see someone get eaten alive in open debate like this).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clarifier, I can use the scientific process to come to my belief system. Just because the evidence comes in different forms than your scientific evidence doesn't make it any less rational.
It's really too bad that your intelligence is blinded by your ego and stubborness. Being rational doesn't mean you have to be so close minded about things. Science has hardly proved that God does not exist, until it does, God is just as real of an explanation as anything like String Theory, M Theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc. The difference is that God is not the sum of mathematical calculations and abstract possibilities, which is all that science has to rely on. Just because you can demonstrate something in a science lab does not meant that's how it happened. And just because you can't explain how a miracle may have happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That is what makes it a miracle.
Your arguments against religion are based on the assumption that God does not exist. It's circular reasoning. You're saying that God does not exist, so creation couldn't have happened because you already know that God couldn't be responsible because you don't think he exists. Another flaw is that you're not taking into account the difference between causal and correlation. Scientific statistics may imply a causal relationship, but you discount the possibility of a correlation between the statistics that you can observe and the cause that you cannot observe. It's like trying to perceive the world by listening to everything while never opening your eyes.
We can't possibly picture the workings of the universe because our perception is limited to only what we can observe. Can you explain the wave/particle like characteristics of a light beam? No because there are obviously factors that we don't understand having an effect on our observations. What is the solution? Scientists create theories to explain the cause of what's happening. Just because other people can agree to the possibility of a scientific theory being correct, that makes it more rational than religion?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattB: [QB] [QUOTE]one more thing, if its not accepted as istorical orthodoxy, or as close to that as you can get, then why was it taught in a religous studies class under a professor who graduated from religous studies at harvard with a phd?
Appeal to authority. That's a fallacy, my friend.
an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority being appealed to is not an "expert" in the field in question. if said person is an expert, and my prof. is, then the appeal is not fallacious in the least (i had to come back to debate logic, its one of my fav. subjects)
"But come on, keep trying, don't give up. Us ignorant religious fools are hard to correct, because we've been brainwashed for so long that we can't possibly understand rational thought. But I know you can convince us with just a little more effort (No, you can't, actually. It's just so amusing to see someone get eaten alive in open debate like this). "
thank you for agknowledging that im right. and i kow i cant convince you, but at least i have the balls to stand up for my beliefs in a place where i am clearly outnumbered. i hope ur can take being criticized in a forum where 90% of the posters share yours views in their entirety. as for being eaten alive, every single point i have made has either not been challenged, or has been challenged with more fallacious reasoning. i plan on sending this link to a few ppl i know, and i wonder who they will think is being eaten alive? the person who holds rational and sound views, or the person who holds moronic religous beliefs, and who is unable to defend those beliefs even in a forum where everyone agrees with him. you guys are sad, and i feel for you. maybe one day u will realize that ur whole worldview is stupid, and then things might be scary for a while, but let me reassure you, the real world is not so bad
oh, and just for reference, im leaving the argument cuz my head hurts from reading your posts, i can only deal with so much idiocy in one day
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:or the person who holds moronic religous beliefs, and who is unable to defend those beliefs even in a forum where everyone agrees with him
Perhaps you were too busy to read the user agreement you agreed to when you signed up, but this post clearly goes beyond the bounds of allowed behavior on this board. You might want to correct it as a show of respect for our hosts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BWAAAAHAHAHAA! Go ahead and send the link, show your friends how bad you are at debate! Calling people morons. That's the fastest way to lose. MUAHAHAHAHAA!
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Clarifier, I can use the scientific process to come to my belief system. Just because the evidence comes in different forms than your scientific evidence doesn't make it any less rational.
It's really too bad that your intelligence is blinded by your ego and stubborness. Being rational doesn't mean you have to be so close minded about things. Science has hardly proved that God does not exist, until it does, God is just as real of an explanation as anything like String Theory, M Theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc. The difference is that God is not the sum of mathematical calculations and abstract possibilities, which is all that science has to rely on. Just because you can demonstrate something in a science lab does not meant that's how it happened. And just because you can't explain how a miracle may have happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That is what makes it a miracle.
Your arguments against religion are based on the assumption that God does not exist. It's circular reasoning. You're saying that God does not exist, so creation couldn't have happened because you already know that God couldn't be responsible because you don't think he exists. Another flaw is that you're not taking into account the difference between causal and correlation. Scientific statistics may imply a causal relationship, but you discount the possibility of a correlation between the statistics that you can observe and the cause that you cannot observe. It's like trying to perceive the world by listening to everything while never opening your eyes.
We can't possibly picture the workings of the universe because our perception is limited to only what we can observe. Can you explain the wave/particle like characteristics of a light beam? No because there are obviously factors that we don't understand having an effect on our observations. What is the solution? Scientists create theories to explain the cause of what's happening. Just because other people can agree to the possibility of a scientific theory being correct, that makes it more rational than religion?
your arguments for the existence of god are just as circular, but where as yours totally defy logic, mine do not. you say you cannot disprove the existence of god, so he must exist, but arguments from ignorance are not valid. there is absolutely no logical need to invent a diety to explain what you cannot understand. scientific theories are just theories, where as you claim that religion is the truth, that is the difference. string theory might be disproved, and everyone will accept the better alternative until it can be disproved as well. that is how science works. and who is ignorant? the person who can change his beliefs according to empiricism and logic, or the person who thinks their religion (among thousands of others) is absoltuely right?
ok! im really gone now, so maybe ill respond another time, or maybe ill just post under my more likeable alias here, and just for reference, my alias has been around alot longer, and is quite respected among you guys. the only reason i created this guy was because i was getting fed up about not saying anything to address your ignorance and stupidity.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:or the person who holds moronic religous beliefs, and who is unable to defend those beliefs even in a forum where everyone agrees with him
Perhaps you were too busy to read the user agreement you agreed to when you signed up, but this post clearly goes beyond the bounds of allowed behavior on this board. You might want to correct it as a show of respect for our hosts.
maybe u should cry
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority being appealed to is not an "expert" in the field in question. if said person is an expert, and my prof. is, then the appeal is not fallacious in the least (i had to come back to debate logic, its one of my fav. subjects)
Let me elaborate. Professors are experts; however, as attending any academic seminar could teach you, they don't all agree. In fact, they often disagree. Vehemently. John Dominic Crossan, perhaps the brightest star among the Jesus seminar people, is considered among the leading experts on the historical evidence about life of Christ, but his opinions about what that evidence says do not therefore become fact. Indeed, there are many scholars who disagree with Crossan. Our resident religious scholar, dkw, could probably tell you more about this dispute than I can. Anyway, that's why appealing to authority in cases like this is not, generally, a convincing argument.
quote:as for being eaten alive, every single point i have made has either not been challenged, or has been challenged with more fallacious reasoning.
I guess the dates I provided are actually fallacies. That's a bummer.
quote:i plan on sending this link to a few ppl i know, and i wonder who they will think is being eaten alive
If they're your friends, I'll take a wild guess and say not you.
And by all means, keep calling us idiots. It helps your logical arguments a great deal.
posted
I'm kind of disappointed. He really never responded to me at all after his second or third "last post" ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't take it personally, Dog. In his mind, you were soundly rebutted with cunning repartee and witty rejoinders and are probably still wriggling in the crushing grip of his logic.
posted
Sad, really. This began as an interesting topic, but degraded relatively quickly into going against the user agreement. I won't delete it, because I think Clarifier should be able to show it to his friends. But it's over.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We DO believe that people should seek knowledge from every source they can. We believe that our current understanding is imperfect, and that later discoveries (through revelation or through study of the natural world) could very easily alter our perspectives.
