This is topic Should this offend OSC? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=039798

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
I was wondering if OSC is aware of what kind of ads Goolgle is serving up on Ornery's homepage. (see picture)

Here's a sample of the kind of content in Why does God Hate Amputees:

quote:
edited by Beren: Content removed to avoid offending people. Warning, if you are religious and you click on that link, you might be offended.
OSC is a pretty tolerant guy, as he has been exceedingly gracious in answering questions about his faith, and has rarely moderated our religious discussions.

However, I'm posting this here just in case he or his family members find such ads offensive and would like to block them from Ornery.

[ December 02, 2005, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
Of course he'd find the ad offensive. Simple as that. Whether or not he actually comes into "Books, Films, Food and Culture" anymore is another thing. I doubt he'll see this.

And I'm not going to speak for him on whether he would mind the ad being on Ornery, and I doubt anyone else who may answer this will be qualified to do so. Of course, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

[ December 02, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
It seems to me the most logical place to register such an observation (is it a complaint?) is on Ornery. Even if Mr. Card doesn't see the post, it will surely be seen by someone there who both can get in touch with Mr. Card, and who has a vested interest in the site itself.

Just my $.02
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Or you could write Papa, or just click on the report icon on one of the posts and explain the problem. GoogleAds allows you to block ads you don't want, they should be able to knock that one out.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
On second thought, a personal email to a moderator on either forum would likely get back to Mr. Card as I can't imagine they wouldn't have a way to contact him. That would also serve to get his notice without further disseminating the offensive material. [edit: or what Chris said]

And I only say "offensive material" because it becomes so in being posted here. The person who runs the site has every right to his opinion. He has every right to advertise his site and seek wider dissemination of his opinion. You, however, are the person who brought the opinion into the Card's living room and waved it around.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Please, not the living-room again!
I thought the intention was really nice, and that's far enough for me. Now the method...
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Thanks for the advice guys. [Smile]

I haven't been following Hatrack that closely lately, but the last time I posted a similar observation about a copyright infringement issue, OSC did respond in the thread.

Moreover, I also thought Geoff and Christine might also have opinions on this subject as well (I don't know if they hang out at Ornery). I know they are busy folks so maybe they've stopped lurking on Hatrack.

To answer Karl's question, this is not really a complaint. I just thought this is something the Cards may be interested in knowing.

It is not big enough deal to email them directly, so I also posted this thread to get a sense of whether the people here who know the Cards better than I do can shed some light on whether I should even bother them about this.

Of course, the real reason I posted here instead of Ornery is that I like you guys better. [Razz]

Edited to add: Anna, I hope this is not interpreted as disrupting the living room again. I don't want to turn this into a "why you anti-religious people keep bashing religion" thread. Maybe I should delete the example so it doesn't turn into that type of thread. Thanks for the reminder. [Smile]
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I'll do as Chris said and report your own post. [Smile] That way you'll be sure it goes to the good person.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I guess my point is that there are large numbers of people here who would likely be offended by the piece. Why spread the offense among those who can't do anything about it? What's the point?

If the "living-room" metaphor is inadequate, how about finding a Playboy magazine that blew into Mr. Card's front yard and taking into an OSC Fan club meeting and waving it around hoping OSC might be there?

[edit: Removed potentially unwarranted criticism. Sorry if it was seen before I deleted it.]
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
KarlEd did have a very valid point though, BerenOneHand. You are the one who posted it here.
The last quoted paragraph is more than enough to demonstrate the tone of the ad.
Please delete the rest of the quotation.
Cuz leaving it as is makes it look as if you are trolling.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I do understand your point, KarlEd. It's just that I'm fed up with the living-room metaphor, it has been discussed a million times and I don't think it's adequate. Anyway, I'm sorry if I sounded angry. [Smile]
And I'll report the post myself, that way I'm sure it won't stay here for too long.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
... Or not, since Beren edited his post. Good move. [Smile]
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
Beren, I don't think you've done anything to deserve this thread becoming aimed at you as a "why you anti-religious people keep bashing religion" thread.. And as such, I don't see that happening. You need not worry about that.

I'm just surprised that site was created by the founder of HowStuffWorks.com: http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-author.htm (non-offensive link). I don't see why he's not confident enough to put it on, or at least link it on his HSW's site. Seem's an appropriate enough place to put it, no?
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Update: I've reported my own post as suggested. I've never used that function before. It figures that the first person who crosses the line would be . . . myself.

Karl, no apologies necessary. I apologize if the example in the post offended people. It was not my intent to do so.

To clarify, I didn't post that example as an endorsement of that website. The stuff in there is so over the top that it is probably on the same rhetorical level as Chick publications. I only posted the example to highlight portions that I think should bother the Cards.

But you guys are right. A link will do just fine. Why force people to read that stuff?

aspectre, you missed my edit by a few minutes. But you are correct, though. [Wink]

Ender, that is a surprising revelation. "How Stuff Works" is a wonderful and catchy domain name. This other name of his is just sad and offensive.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna:
I do understand your point, KarlEd. It's just that I'm fed up with the living-room metaphor, it has been discussed a million times and I don't think it's adequate. Anyway, I'm sorry if I sounded angry. [Smile]
And I'll report the post myself, that way I'm sure it won't stay here for too long.

I didn't think you sounded angry. In fact, I dislike the "living-room" metaphor, myself, and agree that it is inadequate. The only reason I used it here is that the thread was about OSC's reaction, and we've been told before that he views this place as his living room, so I thought the metaphor worked in context. (Though the second metaphor works for my point, too.)
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
I don't like to delete threads that people have posted in.

But if no one has any serious objections, I wouldn't mind terribly if Papa locked this thread. [Smile]
 
Posted by OrneryMOd (Member # 5242) on :
 
You could have contacted me.

However I do not think the site controls what adds show up on the gogle thing at the bottom. They did that, I think, as a way to raise funds to help pay for both sites. I would suspect that Google would have rules about sites controlling what their banner puts up.

The sites on those adds are not random. I think Google mines the forum and finds topics being discussed. I might be wrong though.

OrneryMod
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Sorry OrneryMod, I'll make sure to go through the proper channel next time. [Smile]

I hope you didn't take my comment about liking Hatrack more too seriously. I started out here so I feel more comfortable around here, that's all.

After some research, I've found that Google does allow filtering of individual websites:

Google Adsense

quote:

Can I filter the ads that are displayed on my site?

Yes. To create and manage a filter list of websites whose ads you'd like to restrict from showing on your site or AdSense for search results pages, simply log in to your account at https://www.google.com/adsense and click the Competitive Ad Filter link below the AdSense for content or AdSense for search tab. You can create separate filter lists for your content pages and for your AdSense for search results pages. Ads for the websites that you add to your competitive ad filter list typically will not run on your pages, but remember that filtering sites may decrease the number of ads that can appear on your pages as well as decrease your potential earnings.

For more details on using your competitive ad filter, please read the Filtering Ads section of this FAQ.

We also combine an editorial team and filtering technology to maximize the quality of the Google ads on Google and publisher sites:

*

Review: Across the Google network, ads are reviewed using a combination of human and automated processes before they are shown on publishers' sites. The review process takes into account a variety of factors, including the quality of the ad and whether the ad is suitable for all audiences.
*

Sensitive content filters: At times, certain ads may not be appropriate to run on all pages. For example, Google automatically filters out ads that would be inappropriate on a news page about a catastrophic event.

Please note that Google does not commit that all ads for the websites that you add to your competitive ad filter list or ads containing objectionable content will be prevented from display on your site.


 
Posted by OrneryMOd (Member # 5242) on :
 
I stand corrected.

I understand that Ornery is not everyones cup of tea. That does not bother me. I don't bite the heads off babies, or at least not any time recently. [Smile]

OrneryMod
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Ornery is a great community as well. I just prefer the fluffier forums.

For example, I will probably get banned and castrated for posting this on Ornery:

[The Wave]

Ironically, the last time I followed Ornery was a long time ago, when the new mod was appointed and people were trying to guess your secret identity.

I'm sure the secret is out by now, but I kind of enjoyed the mystery. [Smile]
 
Posted by OrneryMOd (Member # 5242) on :
 
You are right. We do not allow that at Ornery. [Smile]

I came out over a year ago. I also post here under the same name I use at Ornery and at Sakeriver.

Who I am is one of the best non-kept secrets of the site.

OrneryMod
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Getting back to the original subject, personally I would like to know how a religious person answers the questions put on that site. I don't think it is particularly offensive; it seems to me that our friend is bending over backwards to be reasonable and gentle. On the other hand, being offended is a fairly common defensive mechanism for questions you don't want to answer.

So tell me again, how is the Gabriel bit in Mohammed's revelation any different from comrade Smith's angel?
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
At very very very best, the site provides ammunition to those who use "Christians are persecuted" to manipulate the gullible.
At worst, it is an attack on natural philosophy through spreading the disinformation that Science is in opposition to Religion.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I know who you are, OrneryMOd. [Razz]
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
The problem with that website is that calling religious people "delusional" and saying "God hates so and so" is not the best way to have a rational discussion about religion. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I know who you are, OrneryMOd. [Razz]

I knew who OrneryMOd was and am now trying to retrieve that information from my memory. [Razz]
[ROFL]
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I *think* I know who OrneryMOD is. Unless he got replaced sometime. :fear:

KoM, the fact that you consider this guy to be 'reasonable and gentle' is not even the least, tiniest bit surprising.

quote:
So tell me again, how is the Gabriel bit in Mohammed's revelation any different from comrade Smith's angel?
I personally happen to think they are quite similar.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Not only do I know who OrneryMOd is, I have met him/her. So there! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Well, I did think the guy was trying to be gentle, and he does make a few interesting points, but much of it is laughable at best. I find it particularly amusing that he thinks himself clever for discovering that people that don't believe the Joseph Smith story *surprise* don't believe the Joseph Smith story, and the people that don't believe the Mohammed story likewise consist of people that just so happen to not believe the Mohammed story, etc. And while the Santa example is indeed simple, as the author claims, it is a very poor analogy. I didn't find this material to be offensive, just uninteresting.
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
While the webmaster doesn't believe in Santa or Jesus, he does urge his users to buy his T-shirts "just in time for Christmas."
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beren One Hand:
While the webmaster doesn't believe in Santa or Jesus, he does urge his users to buy his T-shirts "just in time for Christmas."

Because "Christmas", aside from having some minor religious overtones, is a marketing juggernaut that one would have to be a fool to overlook or underestimate. [Wink]
 
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
I guess he has to fund his Google campaign somehow. [Smile]
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I read some of the "godhatesamputees" site and I don't find it offensive. The guy is obviously sincere and trying to fix what he feels like is a terrible problem with humanity and our country, the problem of 90% of the people believing in God, whom he feels to be imaginary. He's trying to save us from our delusions, which I find sort of sweet. He's just clueless, that's all, not offensive. At least not to me. Like Joseph Smith, I don't blame people at all for not believing what I believe. If I hadn't experienced the things I've experienced, I wouldn't believe it either. [Smile]

So anyway, I just wanted to stand up for those ads. At least the part that I read wasn't offensive at all to me, it was just trying to persuade me and save me from myself. [Wink]
 
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Last time I checked, OM was msquared.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
As a rule of thumb, I don't think it's a good idea to either be offended on behalf of somebody else or try to decide whether others ought to be offended or not.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

I find it particularly amusing that he thinks himself clever for discovering that people that don't believe the Joseph Smith story *surprise* don't believe the Joseph Smith story, and the people that don't believe the Mohammed story likewise consist of people that just so happen to not believe the Mohammed story, etc.

That's actually part of his point, you realize. [Smile] Which is that the majority of the people on the planet don't believe any particular religious "superstition," no matter how normal and common that belief might seem to someone living within a specific culture.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It's not offensive, just rather incompetent. See this "challenge."

I'm going to flip the challenge around. I will post several sentences from his website that I have selected:

quote:
The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian faith. The Bible is the book that contains the Ten Commandments, the revelation that Jesus is our resurrected savior and the story of our creation. This is God's holy word to his children. God is perfect. Therefore the Bible is perfect. Jesus is God, God does answer prayers, God did create Adam and humans have both souls and eternal life.
It's a ridiculous challenge and one to easily manipulated for any sane proponent of an idea to accept.

His Santa example is just as ridiculous. Consider the proposition, "Person X did Y" (assuming Y is a singular event such as "carried this gift through the air in a sleigh and placed it under this tree sometime between 12:00 and 6:00 AM"). You talk to person A who admits to actually doing Y. You talk to person B who admits to doing Y1, a similar event also claimed to have been performed by X. You repeat this 1,000 times. At this point, you are in possession of some strong evidence that person X did not do Y.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
I don't think Mr Card would find the discussion about this site offensive, even if the site itself were.
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
quote:
That's actually part of his point, you realize. Which is that the majority of the people on the planet don't believe any particular religious "superstition," no matter how normal and common that belief might seem to someone living within a specific culture
I do realize that was his point, I just didn't find it particularly enlightening or useful to the discussion. I thought that essential idea was more or less obvious to most people already, the idea that there are many different beliefs that everyone else tend to disagree with. And I don't see how the fact that many different people and cultures that have differing interpretations of essentially the same idea is supposed to mean that they are all delusional. But then again, perhaps that's just my spiritual side of my brain drowning out the rational side [Smile]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Actually, I think the point is a little stronger than "most people believe different things". It is rather that "most people's religious beliefs sound quite silly to an outsider." It is not so much an issue of what people believe, as why they believe things that are instantly recognisable as nonsense to anyone outside the belief system.

Dag, I do not think you have 'flipped around' the challenge, because you have not got as much material there as he allows his opponents. I doubt you can manage to take thirty minutes' worth of out-of-context quotes from that site, and have them all sound like a fundie. But even if you could, I do not think the two cases are equivalent. The site, after all, is intended as a contribution to a debate; it can reasonably contain summaries of its opponents' arguments. The Bible, on the other hand, is not part of an ongoing debate; it is intended, among other things, as a history of your god's relationship with humans. Quotes from it, showing Yahweh as an evil being, are therefore not irrelevant - it can be assumed they were not put there by opponents of your god in order to discredit it.

As for Santa, I think you are kind of missing the point, here. Yes, we can easily see that Santa does not exist. And we can also, easily, see that your god does not exist. It's not that the Santa story is not ridiculous; it is rather that the Jesus story is also ridiculous.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dag, I do not think you have 'flipped around' the challenge, because you have not got as much material there as he allows his opponents. I doubt you can manage to take thirty minutes' worth of out-of-context quotes from that site, and have them all sound like a fundie.
He said 30 verses. I could certainly find the equivalent.

quote:
But even if you could, I do not think the two cases are equivalent. The site, after all, is intended as a contribution to a debate; it can reasonably contain summaries of its opponents' arguments. The Bible, on the other hand, is not part of an ongoing debate; it is intended, among other things, as a history of your god's relationship with humans. Quotes from it, showing Yahweh as an evil being, are therefore not irrelevant - it can be assumed they were not put there by opponents of your god in order to discredit it.
The point is that it is easy to take things out of context when selecting 30 verses from 60-some odd books.

quote:
Yes, we can easily see that Santa does not exist. And we can also, easily, see that your god does not exist. It's not that the Santa story is not ridiculous; it is rather that the Jesus story is also ridiculous.
We can easily see that Santa doesn't exist [i]because nobody is claiming he exists[i].

He is saying something like, "The only reason you don't disbelieve the Christian story but do disbelieve the Santa story is that you have experience in rationalizing the Christian story."

But it's just not true. The reason I disbelieve the Santa story is that I have directly contradictory evidence that I have personally witnessed that he did not leave particular gifts. Further, there isn't anyone who's actually claiming

All this Santa/IPU analogy misses the point: Nobody's really saying Santa exists, except children who have been told about Santa by someone who doesn't believe Santa exists. Nobody believes the IPU exists.

Making up or pointing to untrue supernatural stories is not evidence of any weight that other supernatural stories don't exist.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Santa, though, is only the trainer-wheel version of the argument; it is intended to show that humans recognise a certain kind of story as false even without actual evidence. It is true that we have evidence against Santa; but if you should encounter the story for the first time as an adult, would you believe it? Never mind investigating; you would dismiss it as false because it is preposterous.

Continuing on to the more advanced version : I assume that as a Catholic you do not believe in Joseph Smith's visions and golden plates, right? But here you can hardly claim there is direct evidence against the story. Again, you recognise this as a fairy tale, entirely in the absence of actual investigation. And here there certainly are people who claim this as literal, exact truth, our esteemed host being one of them.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I assume that as a Catholic you do not believe in Joseph Smith's visions and golden plates, right? But here you can hardly claim there is direct evidence against the story. Again, you recognise this as a fairy tale, entirely in the absence of actual investigation.
I don't claim to recognize Smith's account as a fairy tale. This is a common mistake, one this site makes often.

Smith may have seen what he claimed to see. He may have imagined it. I make no claims about whether he saw or heard what he says he saw or heard, just about the truth of the the conclusions he drew from what he heard and saw. I hold beliefs which contradict the beliefs of those who believe Smith fully. By the nature of those beliefs, I believe Smith's conclusions about God are wrong. Just as Smith and his followers believe that my beliefs about apostolic succession are wrong.

In short, I don't recognize it as a fairy tale.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

In short, I don't recognize it as a fairy tale.

I think you're splitting that hair a little fine, Dag. What would it take to make something a "fairy tale," as opposed to one man's possibly mistaken "vision?"
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Dag,
I'll accept that you haven't made any claims about whether Joseph Smith actually saw or heard what he claimed, but is it safe to assume that you don't believe he did? Or are you saying that you do believe that he saw and heard what he said he did, but also believe that he misinterpreted his experience?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
IIRC, many Christians believe the delusions and visions claimed by competing faiths were actually sent by demons or evil spirits.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I won't insist on the words 'fairy tale'; the point is, you apparently do not consider it reasonable to draw the conclusions that Mormons draw, from the claims of Joseph Smith. Likewise you do not consider it reasonable to draw Moslem conclusions from the claims of Mohammed, or Hindu conclusions from the Vedas, or Norse-pantheon conclusions from the Ynglingasaga. Am I right so far?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Well, yes, I know lots of different things that "many christians" believe. I'm actually wondering what Dag, whose ideas I respect, believes. [Smile]
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
quote:
It is not so much an issue of what people believe, as why they believe things that are instantly recognisable as nonsense to anyone outside the belief system.
But why is it supposedly instantly recognizable as nonsense? Some people feel it is nonsense because of what they have learned about the physical world, namely, that "supernatural" things can't happen. But they didn't start out that way. They had to learn to disbelieve certain things.

It's one thing to suggest that evidence disproves the belief in Jesus. It is quite another to suggest that even the notion of his divinity is impossible to even discuss rationally. The only reason why certain beliefs may seem like utter nonsense to some people is because it conflicts with a person's current beliefs about what is and isn't possible. Just because a person hasn't learned to accept that certain things are impossible to some people's notions of the physical universe, that in itself does not make him delusional.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
OK, that's actually a good point. Let me rephrase : Why do people believe things that of their own religion, which they dismiss as incompatible with their experience when believers in other religions put them forth as evidence? As the saying goes, you're almost as much an atheist as I am; I believe in one god less. Why do you not apply the same rules of evidence to your own god that you apply to everyone else's?
 
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
 
Ah yes, that is one of the points that the author made that I did like. It seems to be far easier to be critical of other people's beliefs than our own. In fact, in another thread unrelated to religion, I suggested that many times people will have a desire or idea that they want to believe in and then have the tendency to interpret everything as evidence to support that idea. They either dismiss or ignore the parts of the brain that suggest anything other than what they want to believe, and I wouldn't put it past my own brain to try to do something similar, which is why I try not to discount as impossible the ideas that I don't currently believe are probable. I think that's kind of the point that this guy was trying to make, and that particular point I was interested in, but I thought his arguments were pretty weak, and so I lost interest in what the rest of the book had to say.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote: God is perfect. Therefore the bible is perfect.


IF we are to beleive the bible is perfect, then why were the pages in my bible misnumbered in the 9th grade??? Could it be that human falability caused my bible to go from page 1013 to 1017 and back to 1014? Could this be a human misinterpritation of the Holy Text? Could there have been other foibles and mistakes along the way??? So many questions, so much faith... So little understanding... (such vagueness)
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
I don't think the Bible's perfect. My guess is, though no one inside the church has told me so, that the Prophet (not neccessarily this one) of the Mormon Church will release the true version when the world is ready for it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Are you suggesting that the "true version" is already available, but has not been released?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
I don't think the Bible's perfect. My guess is, though no one inside the church has told me so, that the Prophet (not neccessarily this one) of the Mormon Church will release the true version when the world is ready for it.

"True Version"? And the Joseph Smith Translation was. . . . what? Just another mistaken interpretation?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I'll accept that you haven't made any claims about whether Joseph Smith actually saw or heard what he claimed, but is it safe to assume that you don't believe he did? Or are you saying that you do believe that he saw and heard what he said he did, but also believe that he misinterpreted his experience?
I don't have any basis for choosing between any of the possibilities as to what he saw. I have received no evidence other than testimony; I find this testimony less compelling than the combination of testimony and personal evidence I have received about my own faith.

I do think what Tom has mentioned (malevolent beings purposely sending false visions) could happen. I don't think every case, or even most cases, of "competing visions" occur because of this.

I believe that Smith did not receive divine revelation whose intent was that he found (or restore - I'm not sure which word is appropriate) the LDS Church. I don't know if he received no actual revelation, if the revelation he received was divine but misinterpreted, or if the revelation he received was from a non-divine source such as malevolent spirit or psychological delusion.

quote:
I won't insist on the words 'fairy tale'
My sticking point isn't "fairy tale" so much as "instantly recognizable as nonsense." I believe what Joseph Smith recounted is possible, and must be evaluated with more thought than "this is nonsense."

quote:
the point is, you apparently do not consider it reasonable to draw the conclusions that Mormons draw, from the claims of Joseph Smith. Likewise you do not consider it reasonable to draw Moslem conclusions from the claims of Mohammed, or Hindu conclusions from the Vedas, or Norse-pantheon conclusions from the Ynglingasaga.
I do not consider unreasonable for someone to draw the conclusions Mormons, Muslims, or Hindus draw. For one, I recognize that there are many reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from a given set of evidence, most or even all of them inaccurate. Second, I recognize that people have been exposed to different sets of evidence.

Unreasonableness isn't a necessary factor.

quote:
Am I right so far?
So, no, not really.

quote:
Why do people believe things that of their own religion, which they dismiss as incompatible with their experience when believers in other religions put them forth as evidence? As the saying goes, you're almost as much an atheist as I am; I believe in one god less. Why do you not apply the same rules of evidence to your own god that you apply to everyone else's?
Again, it's possible one has applied the same rules of evidence to other religions. I don't disbelieve Mormon or Islamic teachings because I don't believe the revelations at the root of each didn't happen. I disbelieve them because I don't believe the revelations, based on my evaluation of other evidence.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I believe that the Joseph Smith Translation is a more perfect translation, it still does not make the Bible a perfect nor a complete book.

quote:
God is perfect. Therefore the bible is perfect
I don't believe the Bible was written by God. I believe it was written by his servants here on earth.

Those men were not perfect. Therefore the Bible is not perfect.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I believe that Smith did not receive divine revelation whose intent was that he found (or restore - I'm not sure which word is appropriate) the LDS Church.
Just to answer your question, I would say that Joseph Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints OR that he restoredChrist's true church.

He couldn't have restored the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, since it had never existed, as a Church for Saints of the Latter-Days, before.

It's not important, but there was an implied (or at least inferred) question there, so I answered it.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks, MPH.
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
karl, Mormons don't use the Bible Joseph Smith translated. They use the King James Bible. I made a guess as to why they don't use the one JS translated: the world is not ready for it, nor has it ever been since JS's time, while at the same time giving an explanation as to how the Bible is not the same as God would have originally had it made. But that's all it was, a guess.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
karl, Mormons don't use the Bible Joseph Smith translated. They use the King James Bible.
I use both.

quote:
Thanks, MPH.
You are welcome.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
karl, Mormons don't use the Bible Joseph Smith translated. They use the King James Bible. I made a guess as to why they don't use the one JS translated: the world is not ready for it, nor has it ever been since JS's time, while at the same time giving an explanation as to how the Bible is not the same as God would have originally had it made. But that's all it was, a guess.

Mormons do use the JST of the Bible. If you have the LDS version of the King James Bible, it is rife with footnotes, many of which refer to the JST when that version is significantly different from the KJV. Why the church chose to adopt the KJV rather than promote the JST is anyone's guess.

Dag, thank you for answering my question.
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
So where you come from, you actually use the JST? i didn't even know it'd been formally published but I just checked it at lds.org. I must say I'm rather surprised.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Read carefully what I wrote. The JST is part of the LDS-published version of the KJV.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Dag, thank you for answering my question.
Did it actually make things any clearer? I wasn't sure I accurately expressed the distinction I was trying to draw.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

Unreasonableness isn't a necessary factor.

Hm. I wonder if a common trait among atheists and agnostics is a lower threshold for the diagnosis of "unreasonable" things.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I don't have any basis for choosing between any of the possibilities as to what he saw. I have received no evidence other than testimony; I find this testimony less compelling than the combination of testimony and personal evidence I have received about my own faith.

Hang on, though. There is testimony for both the Mormon and Catholic versions of Christianity, right? But, you claim, you have personal experience only for the latter. But doesn't it seem likely that, had you been born into a Mormon family, the interpretation you put even on exactly the same experience would be entirely different? If this weren't so, I think you are at something of a loss to explain why most religious people, even the ones who, like yourself, claim a personal experience, follow the faith of their parents. So, if you accept this premise, then your 'evidence' supports all positions equally; which is to say, it is useless.


quote:
quote:
I won't insist on the words 'fairy tale'
My sticking point isn't "fairy tale" so much as "instantly recognizable as nonsense." I believe what Joseph Smith recounted is possible, and must be evaluated with more thought than "this is nonsense."
Do you, indeed? I find that remarkably interesting. Would you say the same of modern-day accounts of alien abductions, which indeed resemble comrade Smith's account quite closely in many ways, right down to the glowing being telling people how they should live righteously? If not, why not?


quote:
Again, it's possible one has applied the same rules of evidence to other religions. I don't disbelieve Mormon or Islamic teachings because I don't believe the revelations at the root of each didn't happen. I disbelieve them because I don't believe the revelations, based on my evaluation of other evidence.
Again, though, I'd like to point out that, had you been born into the tradition of the LDS, you almost certainly would believe the revelations, based on extremely similar evidence. So what makes Catholicism special?
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Dag, thank you for answering my question.
Did it actually make things any clearer? I wasn't sure I accurately expressed the distinction I was trying to draw.
Yes it did. At first I thought you were just hedging, but that's not usually your style. On closer reading I think I get what you are saying. My own attitude, I think, is pretty similar, though I'm working from a different premise and interpreting "evidence" differently because of that.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Would you say the same of modern-day accounts of alien abductions, which indeed resemble comrade Smith's account quite closely in many ways, right down to the glowing being telling people how they should live righteously? If not, why not?
Would I say what? That it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand? Of course I would. I can quickly arrive at a conclusion that's essentially, "This isn't something I need to concern myself with, because I don't believe it to be true, and even if it were, what the hell could I do about it."

But it's not "instantly recognizable as nonesense"; it's certainly possible there are aliens appearing to humans. I'm not going to believe in them at this time, because I think there is more evidence the other way. I'm not even going to investigate further.

quote:
Again, though, I'd like to point out that, had you been born into the tradition of the LDS, you almost certainly would believe the revelations, based on extremely similar evidence. So what makes Catholicism special?
Neither one of us has any basis for saying one way or the other. KarlEd grew up Mormon (I'm not sure if he was born into it), and he left. I've known people to leave the Catholic Church, too. I've also known lots of people to join it.

[ December 03, 2005, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
That is why I was careful to couch my observation in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties. I do not think you can disagree that most people remain in their parents' church all their lives. Leaving that aside for the moment, though, could you perhaps accept the postulate for the time being, and expound on what that would imply for your faith?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
While you can say X percent of all people believe what they were taught to believe growing up, that does not follow that any specific individual has X percent chance of doing the same.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
That is why I was careful to couch my observation in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties.
What MPH said.

quote:
Leaving that aside for the moment, though, could you perhaps accept the postulate for the time being, and expound on what that would imply for your faith?
Which postulate are you speaking of? I'm not sure from the context.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I think most people identify with their parent's religion most of their lives. I'm not sure that's the same as "remain in their parent's church", though. I have two sisters who very much identify themselves as Mormons but neither of whom live anywhere near the ideals of the Mormon church. I have many, many acquantances, some of whom are gay, who identify as "Christian", or even as "Catholic" or "Lutheran", but who haven't stepped foot in a church since their parents dragged them to Sunday School. I have many acquaintances who very uncritically believe there is "something" to "at least some" of the alien abduction claims, and even a few who believe John Edwards can speak with the dead. The bottom line is "most people" in my experience, don't even think about these types of things (religion included) except where their lives incidentally brush up against them, or when idle conversations turn to religion. So it stands to reason that among those who do attend church regularly, a large percentage do so because of habit rather than because of the results of a long and thorough investigation. It's also likely that most people don't investigate very deeply because most religions look very much alike in the practical, daily aspects of living them. Where they differ most is in the areas where evidence of their truthfulness or utility are most lacking. So it's very likely that "cultural adherents" to a religion would find reasons to switch very uncompelling. Most people don't dig deeply into their own religions. Most people are content to believe others, especially their religious leaders, have done so and are content to live on that borrowed light.

Since the question was raised, I was born into the Mormon Church. All my close family still identifies as Mormon. Mormonism always made sense to me, given certain premises. But because personal testimony is given so much importance in the LDS church, and I could never get any identifiable witness for myself, I always wondered if I would have converted to Mormonism if I had been born Catholic, or something else, and later encountered the LDS church. I'm guessing "not" at this point in my life.
 
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
For whoever cares to make an educated guess, percentage-wise, how many Mormons do you think are simply born into it? And do you think this is the main reason the LDS church is the fastest growing in the world?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think the MAIN reason nowadays is that the Mormons pretty much require aggressive missionary work from half their population. But I'm sure birth rate helps -- and I'm sure, when they were populating Utah mostly on their own, that it was a pretty huge factor.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I'd like to see hard figures of active church members alongside "members of record". (For all religions, not just LDS). When I was on my mission in South America, (which reported huge conversion rates for years before I went on my mission), it was very common to work in a ward with only 10 percent or so active members.

"Fastest Growing" isn't necessarily a good thing if it ultimately doesn't make a difference in the individual's life.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
While you can say X percent of all people believe what they were taught to believe growing up, that does not follow that any specific individual has X percent chance of doing the same.
Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.

quote:
Which postulate are you speaking of? I'm not sure from the context.
The postulate that, had you been born into a Mormon family, you would have interpreted your experience as evidence in favour of that version of Christianity, rather than Catholicism. Perhaps 'hypothesis' would be a better word.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.
Probability is about what happens with random events. But your question was about a specific person (me) and posed to a person with fairly deep insight into that specific person's thoughts (also me). One would assume you are interested in knowing about any personality traits that correlate with maintaining parental faith or not, and are not merely interested in a probabilistic answer.

quote:
The postulate that, had you been born into a Mormon family, you would have interpreted your experience as evidence in favour of that version of Christianity, rather than Catholicism. Perhaps 'hypothesis' would be a better word.
Thanks for clarifying. I'll think about my response and put it together today or tomorrow.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
For whoever cares to make an educated guess, percentage-wise, how many Mormons do you think are simply born into it?
This varys wildly depending on what part of the world you are in. In the united states, I'd say that over 80% of the members were raised Mormon.

In most of the rest of the world, I'd say that over 90% of the members were not.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.
Probability is about what happens with random events. But your question was about a specific person (me) and posed to a person with fairly deep insight into that specific person's thoughts (also me). One would assume you are interested in knowing about any personality traits that correlate with maintaining parental faith or not, and are not merely interested in a probabilistic answer.
I might be interested, but I do not in fact have any such information; it follows that the probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. Moreover, as I'm sure you realise, the entire basis of this line of questioning is my belief that you are deceiving yourself about why you believe as you do; therefore, your own insights into your thought processes are not entirely helpful.
 
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
 
Actually, if you were truly trying to persuade Dag to believe as you do (rather than assuming he's some sort of master of self-deception), insights into his thought processes would be of the utmost importance, and entirely helpful. As it is, you merely come off as a boorish know-it-all. [Smile]
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
But that is not what we were discussing; rather, it was the possibility that he would take the Mormon faith had he been born into a Mormon family.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I might be interested, but I do not in fact have any such information; it follows that the probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. Moreover, as I'm sure you realise, the entire basis of this line of questioning is my belief that you are deceiving yourself about why you believe as you do; therefore, your own insights into your thought processes are not entirely helpful.
Then I doubt I'll take the time to provide them to you.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I don't think I asked for them; we are discussing two separate matters here. First is the probability that you would accept the Mormon faith had you been born into it; here I argue that a probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. But second is the question of how this would affect your current faith, if we could prove it was true. Here there is no data other than your own internal musings. Which, therefore, I would still like to hear.
 
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Dag, for what it's worth, I'd like to hear your response. However, I'll understand if you choose not to give one, all things considered.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Karl, I'll get to it tomorrow - it's something I have to work to put in words, plus I'm not sure how much of it I'll be comfortable sharing.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KoM, here is my Christian response to your questions:

As far as I am concerned the questions in the web site miss the point. These things are not what matters. It isn’t about what is fact; it is about what is true . There is a difference between fact and truth. The gospels illustrate larger truths.

For example:

What matters in the birth stories is that God became incarnate in the world and that we are called to continue to be God in the world. If I were to time travel and discover that Jesus was conceived in the usual way, it would make no difference at all.

What is important about the resurrection is the message that love is stronger than death.

Faith, for me, is a matter of choosing to believe in the larger truths.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2