quote:I'm talking about his religion, which doesn't deserve any form of respect, but instead ridicule and contempt.
And yet you made a specific promise not to ridicule and express contempt here for his (or any) religion when you signed up on this board.
I bet Dawkins has addressed the evolutionary advantages of a tendency to keep one's promises. Perhaps a little review is in order.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A man who had been jailed for being a con artist
Are you talking about Joseph's time in Liberty Jail?
quote: is told to find gold plates that no one else saw
Up to fifteen other people claimed to have seen and handled the plates.
quote: and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years.
I'm pretty sure that the English Joseph translated the plates into was being spoken at the time.
quote: Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners
That's not nearly outrageous enough. Mormons believe Native Americans are descended from the tribe of Mannasseh.
quote: cities that were never there according to Archeology
This one's still up in the air. There are lots of archealogical evidences against what is claimed in the Book of Mormon-- true.
quote: Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there.
You point out these, but not the idea that Jesus is coming back PERIOD? I mean, of all these things, the idea that someone who was tortured then hung on a cross, then was confirmed dead by someone sticking a spear in his side, then spending three days buried in a tomb, and coming back in a body that can't die-- that doesn't stick out as even more implausible?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You point out these, but not the idea that Jesus is coming back PERIOD? I mean, of all these things, the idea that someone who was tortured then hung on a cross, then was confirmed dead by someone sticking a spear in his side, then spending three days buried in a tomb, and coming back in a body that can't die-- that doesn't stick out as even more implausible?
I want it to be clear I don't support how Pygmalian has been presenting himself.
That said, I have to say, while coming back to life is incredibly implausible, coming back to life and then traveling thousands of miles is even more implausible. Just because it adds to the implausibleness. (Is that a word?)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pygmalion, perhaps I was unclear. Stop it. Your posts are violating the rules of this forum. You are welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, but you are not welcome to express all of them here.
posted
Scott R, see Sam Harris quote above, Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist. I only come here to get updates on the Ender's Game movie anyway; but the misrepresentation about Dawkins and atheists in general pissed me off.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure why I should trust this Sam Harris person more than my own logic and learning. I don't find the teachings of Mormonism to be any more ridiculous than normal Christianity's ridiculousness.
I mean, Javert's opinion notwithstanding-- once you've got a confirmed dead guy walking around, appearing in rooms out of nowhere, flying up into Heaven-- everything starts to become a lot more plausible.
From the normal Christian standpoint, the ideas you've highlighted aren't any (qualitatively) weirder than anything related in the Bible-- they're just more recent.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I mean, Javert's opinion notwithstanding-- once you've got a confirmed dead guy walking around, appearing in rooms out of nowhere, flying up into Heaven-- everything starts to become a lot more plausible.
Dead guy: Fine. Dead guy rising from the dead: Okay. Dead guy flying into heaven: Still with you. Dead guy traveling to pre-Columbian America: Come on! Now you're just pulling my leg!
Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Also, I highly recommend reading his two books, The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation. Wonderful books
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:B) Not a step away from Scientology? A man who had been jailed for being a con artist is told to find gold plates that no one else saw and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years. Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners, cities that were never there according to Archeology, Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there. I could keep going for quite a while.
...two dissimilar religions having what you consider as ridiculous beliefs does not make them "a step away" from eachother.
quote:I'll take my chances with Xenu.
Because the man who you say was proven to be lying is much more likely to be telling the truth than the man who died for his religion. That seems pretty logical.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No- he was in jail at the time of his death, in a county that was known for its antagonism toward Mormons. Read the article you linked to, Pygmalion-- does it sound like Smith was all that politically powerful?
He surrendered himself.
He kept only three other people in the jail with him, none of whom had been charged with wrong-doing. One of them was killed; one was wounded; one was unhurt.
There were no Mormons around the jail to protect him when the mob of 200 anti-Mormons stormed the jail.
In fact, he returned to Nauvoo when he had every chance (and had already started to do so) to walk away from the situation.
The situation was not exactly as you've colored it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
No it doesn't. The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no? Coming back in Missouri is clearly a very tiny subset of the actions available to such a limitless being, and is therefore quite improbable. Whatever the probability that such a being exists, it is even smaller when multiplied by the Missouri thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, in my experience, religious people have a way of believing that neither includes nor excludes probability. Just think about Catholics, and the idea of transubstantiation. There is a simultaneous understanding that one tastes flour and alcohol, and that this *really* is flesh and blood. Of course, this is why during my Catholic high school years, I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions. It would just be too much to ask of someone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no?
No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
(That is, if you believe that God/Christ are omnipotent in the classical sense of the word-- which most Christians do. And Mormons do not. So...)
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire? I'm confused about the connection between these two things.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Well, I don't try and prove a negative for one. I just find it unlikely that there are many people who really believe in transubstantiation. I base that conclusion not entirely on my personal beliefs about God, but on my actuall experiences with church, so I'd say it's fairly different.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're going to anecdote each other, I do know many people who really believe in transubstantiation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
Yes. That is one course of action. Choosing to appear only in Missouri is a different course of action. But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
So, when assigning a probability, you have to say "Given an omnipotent being (probability X), he can do Missouri, he can do New York, he can do Missouri and New York at the same time (...) there are N courses of action available, so the probability of Missouri is 1/N absent other information. Multiply by X for the total probability, to get something smaller than X."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire?
Um....No. Do you know what "there are no atheists in foxholes" means?
Apparently you don't.
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
So how does this compare to transubstantiation?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
What can I say, I'm a stubborn ass
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
Um, I think that was the point Scott was making:
What Orincoro said: "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions."
My (I figure) reasonable extrapolation of the foxes quote (especially since I didn't know what it meant either): "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the atheist traditions."
Scott's point was that they're *both* bogus.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro made the statement that he didn't really believe that other people believed in things their church (in this case the Catholic church) taught.
The "foxhole" statement assumes that atheistic beliefs do not hold up under duress.
Both statements seem to me to make a judgment about others' beliefs that cannot be reasonably made-- "You don't really believe that, despite you saying you do..."
quote:But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Scott, I said I don't think they believe in the church's traditions. That's not the same thing as belief in God, which I can't attest to. I have found that the Catholic church's mystic traditions, such as transubstantiation or ascension, or immaculate conception, don't seem to appeal much to Catholics I have known. Particularly, the religion teachers I had in high school put very little stock in them, and took every opportunity to downplay their importance.
I think that the weight of the traditions and teachings of the church is so great, that no person could be expected to know about, understand, and much less believe in them all, or even many of them. In my experience, again only anecdotal, I have not known any who attested a firm belief in any of them. That is quite apart from belief in God, as I have known many who really seemed to have that belief. It seems to me that the traditions of the church are a function of its age and political complexity, and I have always been amazed that they aren't more openly rejected. Following Vatican II though, the emphasis on many of the traditions that don't closely apply to belief, as opposed to history, has been lifted.
As for atheists in foxholes, that applies to belief in God only, not to any particular set of traditions or teachings apart from that. Having never been in a foxhole, I can't tell you what my reaction would be. I have been close to death before, and I have never believed in God, even in a stressful moment. What I can say is that I think the saying "there are no Atheists in foxholes" is a rather good demonstration of my position on the belief in God.
My view is that the mind is capable of manufacturing a state of belief that defies fundamental reasoning in times of extreme stress, if the foundation for that belief, such as an image of a "God," already exists and is attached to a person's world view in a more general way. As I've said before, I think the hieroglyphic image of "God" as a part of culture is entirely responsible for the shaping of that kind of belief. If a person were not raised with the more well-defined image as a part of culture, the reaction to stress, and the transcendent state of the mind that people associate with faith would take a different shape.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. Although, you know that I think it is, or that I say it is, so the individual in question would be me.
I suppose too that the definition of "belief" is murky. If we're talking about music, I am ambivalent about electronic music in its entirety because not all of it is in fact worthwhile.
Also, music writing is based on the shared understanding of glyphic symbols that are manipulated and presented artistically for any number of reasons. You might as well say that you don't think anyone believes that writing or reading is worthwhile. For many people, and many written works, it isn't, but the word itself is above reproach. Since we're talking about a body of traditions that are much less plastic than the act of music making, which encompasses many traditions, I don't think the statements in question are analogous.
I see your point though.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know about most atheists here, but as for me I'm agnostic on the subject; cosmology is not yet a sufficiently precise science to answer such questions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and then he would have times to make chocolate chip cookies and read us all a bedtime story as well. Sheesh
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Yes, yes, but the individuals observing him in each universe would still see him appearing in either New York, or New York+Missouri. The probability analysis still applies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Even if you rule out an infinite number of impossibilities, an infinite number of possibilities still exist.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Why are these things a problem?
Some people feel that God actually comforts them in their time of need; some people feel that he really does work miracles of healing.
And some people lean on close friends or parents in difficult times; some people trust completely in medical science for their miracles.
Belief in the one doesn't eliminate the benefits of the other.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Because that's what god is to many people: a parent.
You should have seen the fireworks at my house when I told god that I had been skipping my math class. What does God care? I want to be an artist, I don't need math. But no, God has to be so unreasonable. God grounded me for a month. The worst part was not being able to go to ruby's with my friends. All I had to eat was God's disgusting casserole.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
...but is essentially useless in terms of the conversation we were having.
Wrong. The statement was, "Whatever the probability of a god existing, the probability of it both existing and choosing to appear in Missouri is smaller."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
and you responded
quote:Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
I admit to paraphrasing Pygmalion a bit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
...while technically true don't really add to the conversation much.
The beginning discussion was about whether believing that Christ would come to Missouri was more outrageous than believing he'd come back ANYWHERE AT ALL.
No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
So how is your point useful to this conversation?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
We were discussing probabilities, and whether they apply to limitless beings. You asserted that they do not. I showed why they do. Whatever the probability of X, the probability of (X and Y) is smaller, for any value of Y. Limitless or not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
That would make a believer out of me. That's about the ONLY thing that would though.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm pretty sure that the English Joseph translated the plates into was being spoken at the time.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
