posted
twinky: Joseph's visit by Moroni when he was 17 had a unique quality. Moroni visited him three times that night and once the next morning and each time Moroni repeated the same things he said during his first visit and added a few other words each time. After that many times of hearing the same message, I have no doubt that he remembered the verses that were quoted to him.
Now, he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ when he was 14 and that account wasn't in as great of detail. Actually, there are four different written accounts of his first vision. Critics cite that as evidence that the story isn't true. For me, it is more evidence that the vision did take place. You don't tell about an experience from your life the exact same way every time. You focus on different aspects or details of the story depending on how you're telling it to. The same is true for Joseph's First Vision. There is nothing in any of the stories that contradict the other stories and all of them basically say the same thing. For more on this see: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/firstvision.pdf
Side note: I don't usually have the URL button. I was able to get it once, but it has disappeared again and I can't get it back, even when I click on "UBB Code is enabled" to the left of my message box. Does anyone know how I can get it back? I use Firefox.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky: I am truly sorry for offending you and for offending anyone else. I will try to do better.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, The URL button doesn't show up in the quick reply form. If you click on the Full Reply Button to type out your posts, you'll find it in there. Conversely, you could type in the UBB code yourself, which isn't too difficult. It goes (replacing <'s and >'s with ['s and ]'s) <url=www.somedarnplace.com>some text</url>.
edit: My time on these boards has convinced me that LDS is just about the most unconsciously insulting religion I've ever come across. The way most LDS seem to regard people who don't share their religion is terribly dismissive. Most of us here are sort of used to it, but if you could keep in mind that we don't actually think that there is something wrong with us or our efforts to find God, it might go a long way towards mitigating that offensiveness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Twinky: I am truly sorry for offending you and for offending anyone else. I will try to do better.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I think it's very important to admit -- particularly in the case of ideologies that a person believes to be True with a capital T -- that other people can conduct an equally valid search for such Truth and come up with a different answer or come up empty-handed, and that that is in no way a reflection on how earnest or thorough the search was. I think it is possible to believe that your religion is True without believing that everyone should share it, or even that everyone would share it if they had the same experiences as you.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: Again, I am sorry. I do not believe anything is wrong with anyone and I respect all honest efforts to find God. Typically, I am very respectful and sensitive to the feelings of others. Yet, in the setting of these message boards, where I am challenged on every point, I sometimes get defensive, which I suppose is common for many people, but no excuse. I should have known better than to start this thread. I should have realized that it would lead me to this point. This is probably why message boards discourage arguments about religious beliefs. I acted out of frustration when I saw KoM pick on Rusta Burger and wanted to show him that it is not ridiculous to believe in God. MrSquicky, please don't judge all LDS by me. And if others have demonstrated these same characteristics on these boards, I again bet it is because they got defensive and caught up in the debate. Please accept my apology. I will not be responding to anymore messages on this thread.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeez, enochville, I was specifically try to not bust your chops there. I think, in general, you've done a very good job here. I wasn't offended by your statements. It seems to me from my experiences here that the "People who aren't LDS either didn't look for God or didn't do it hard or long enough." is a very common, accepted idea in LDS culture. I didn't think you said it with any idea that it would be offensive.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... And the Muslims genuinely believe that if only you weren't so pig-headed, you would see the truth of Allah as soon as you prayed. (And, incidentally, this is not at all compatible with the stuff you've been spewing, because it specifically denies the divinity of Jesus.) Can we please say enough with the "I'm convinced that" arguments? Do you have any actual evidence to present?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, I didn't see the 'not responding anymore' bit. Well then, as the last man standing, I shall declare victory. Imagine pulling out of a thread just because you inadvertently give offense! Or, I dunno, maybe because your brilliant arguments don't look quite so wonderful in the harsh light of day?
I stand by 'idiot'; I add 'coward'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
enoch, Looking over what I wrote, I realize I expressed myself very poorly. I'm sorry that it came across the way that it did. You had done a very good job of expressing your personal thoughts on a very touchy subject here while remaining clear and respectful, which is a difficult thing to do. That little bit was perhaps disrespectful, but, as I did a bad job of expressing before, I don't think you meant it to be or expected that people would take it that way.
On Hatrack, most people are very good at accepting appologies. Even if you had intened to be disrespectful with that, if you appologized and seemed to mean it, most people here would let it go. I know for sure that twinky and dkw would. If you don't want to continue, that's fine, but know that it's most likely you can without any ill feelings.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
*waits to see if KoM is even capable of that* *realizes he may be waiting longer than he's willing to* *gives up waiting*
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: KoM, I think you do enochville a grave disservice. He's neither an idiot nor a coward; there's a huge difference between bowing out to avoid acrimony and withdrawing out of cowardice.
So there is; I thought it was clear that I don't believe his assertions of the former.
quote: -- and nowhere has he displayed even the tiniest shred of idiocy. Please do the man the favor of some basic respect.
I disagree. His argument rests, basically, on "I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong, and if they'd only pray in the right way they'd recognise it." If there is a better way to display parochial stupidity, I'm not sure what it is. Threatening entire cities with the punishments of God for voting out a school board, maybe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: His argument rests, basically, on "I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong, and if they'd only pray in the right way they'd recognise it."
No, it doesn't. His argument as presented here rests on what he believes are evidences of the likely validity of the Book of Mormon, from which he extrapolates the existence of God. You can argue the quality of that evidence -- as indeed I have -- but it certainly doesn't amount to "if you pray, you'll know I'm right."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville (if you're still reading) I, for one, will be disappointed if you leave. I think you are a thoughtful, intelligent person of the type that is an asset to any conversation. When people object to your post or to part of it they aren't saying you should leave, they are saying they'd like to see you address their point(s). Or at least that's what I'm saying when I do it. I suppose I shouldn't generalize. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For clarification's sake, I'll post once more on this thread. I am not leaving Hatrack; but, I will not be taking part in this thread anymore. I am not offended, a coward, or an idiot. When twinky took offense, it reminded me that I never should have started the thread in the first place. For one, as this board's user agreement states, "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs," which my discussion was getting dangerously close to if not already crossed. Two, I came to see that nothing will stop King of Men from calling believers idiots. Three, I don't want to offend others or make my fellow LDS look bad. I don't mind sincere disagreements, but when I talk about my religious beliefs I prefer a less contentious atmosphere. I take responsibility for starting this discussion and for my lack of foresight.
However, any of you are welcome to email me if you want to discuss the topic of this thread further.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:as the last man standing, I shall declare victory
KoM, I'm curious about what exactly you think you have won. Is it respect? Is it converts? Is it a sense of pride?
It's interesting because you are so close to achieving all three of those things. We can almost respect your intelligence and knowledge. I think it's very possible for people to question and change their beliefs based on the arguments you make, but I don't think it's ever actually happened. I don't really suppose that you're lacking in pride, but successfully accomplishing the previous two things would probably lead to a justified sense of pride.
I almost always take time to read your posts. Sometimes they are humorous and often times fairly clever. I recognize that there is a lot of valuable information in what you have to say, but it's hidden beneath layers of condescension and ridicule. If you made only a few subtle changes to your posting style, I think you would gain much in return. However, it is clear that you have no intention of doing such a thing. So that brings me back to the question of what you hope to gain or achieve in these discussions.
I'm not actually suggesting you change anything. In fact, I find much of what you say very interesting, and I even enjoy the way you say it, most of the time. All I really want to know is, what do you get out of it?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last-man-standing bit was intended somewhat tongue in cheek - I do recognise that one is hardly the winner in a debate just because the other guy doesn't want to argue anymore. As for the rest, I dunno, maybe it's the pleasure of being absolutely honest? It's not as though I'm faking being contemptuous of religion.
quote:when I talk about my religious beliefs I prefer a less contentious atmosphere.
Ah - you prefer people to nod wisely and agree with your every word? Or even, dare I say it, to not point out the gaping flaws in your arguments? As for the contentious atmosphere, gosh a'mighty, if you didn't want a discussion, why did oyu start the thread in the first place?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not as though I'm faking being contemptuous of religion.
I don't doubt your sincerity. I just don't understand what you get out of it (and I don't believe the part about the pleasure of being absolutely honest as your motivation). And if it were just your contempt for religion, I don't think it'd be a big deal. That contempt can be very understandable. It's your contempt for people that find a value in religion that, I think, reeks of ignorance. I'm not talking about ignorance in terms of science, history, or any particular field of study. Instead, I'm talking about ignorance, or maybe it can be better described as the inability to understand other people's perspectives on life and what they find to be important.
quote:Ah - you prefer people to nod wisely and agree with your every word? Or even, dare I say it, to not point out the gaping flaws in your arguments? As for the contentious atmosphere, gosh a'mighty, if you didn't want a discussion, why did oyu start the thread in the first place?
I think you're using a different definition (or making up your own definition) of "discussion."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't understand what you get out of it (and I don't believe the part about the pleasure of being absolutely honest as your motivation).
Why not? I mean, I'm guessing here, because even your own motivations are always a bit of a guessing game, but it is my best guess. Do you have a better theory?
quote:And if it were just your contempt for religion, I don't think it'd be a big deal. That contempt can be very understandable. It's your contempt for people that find a value in religion that, I think, reeks of ignorance. I'm not talking about ignorance in terms of science, history, or any particular field of study. Instead, I'm talking about ignorance, or maybe it can be better described as the inability to understand other people's perspectives on life and what they find to be important.
I don't see how you can be contemptuous of a belief, and not of the people who hold that belief. If the belief is silly and evil, then the believers are either stupid or ignorant for holding it, yes? Neither quality inspires respect.
And I quite understand that my neighbour's daughter finds her teddy bear important. Which is not to say that I would necessarily risk my life to save it from being run over. And if she were an adult, well, really.
quote:I think you're using a different definition (or making up your own definition) of "discussion."
Well, I wasn't being particularly nasty until this page.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how you can be contemptuous of a belief, and not of the people who hold that belief
and that pretty much sums up your problem. Talk to any parent and you'll find that it's entirely possible to love a child while disapproving their actions.
quote:And if she were an adult, well, really.
Why does that matter? You judge everyone based on how you think they should see the world without ever considering that your perspective may not be the only correct view. You judge them without even trying to understand why they may feel that way.
quote:Neither quality inspires respect.
Some people and some actions may not warrant your respect, but does that mean you should go out of your way to try to demean them? Just because you want to believe that certain people are inferior to you, that justifies the way you treat them?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Talk to any parent and you'll find that it's entirely possible to love a child while disapproving their actions.
I did say contempt, which is rather stronger than disapproval. And I generally cut children quite a bit more slack than adults.
quote:Why does that matter? You judge everyone based on how you think they should see the world without ever considering that your perspective may not be the only correct view. You judge them without even trying to understand why they may feel that way.
I do think that when it comes to 'God exists' there is only one correct view. It's not really something you can compromise on, is it? 'God exists on alternate Wednesdays', maybe?
And why should the cause of someone's feelings matter? If they're wrong, they're wrong.
quote:Some people and some actions may not warrant your respect, but does that mean you should go out of your way to try to demean them? Just because you want to believe that certain people are inferior to you, that justifies the way you treat them?
Who's going out of their way? I post on Hatrack anyway, and this is the way I post when people say not-very-bright things. I would not want anyone to feel that they had caused me trouble, so please set your mind at ease : I am not at all discommoded by responding to theists.
As for treating people as inferiors, well, intelligence is the one aspect that everyone discriminates on, whether they admit it or not. I'm just more open about it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did say contempt, which is rather stronger than disapproval. And I generally cut children quite a bit more slack than adults.
My brother is 26 (hardly a child). He is addicted to drugs. Contempt is a mild way to describe how my family feels about his addiction. We manage to still love him. We feel that a person isn't entirely defined by his actions. Hopefully we are not the only ones capable of thinking that way.
quote:If they're wrong, they're wrong.
So you have enough knowledge to know that they are wrong? I find it ironic that you cling to your beliefs (ie. all theists are idiots) more strongly than some of the most ardent of theists. So which is more dangerous to society, the one that refuses to admit that he is wrong, or the one that is willing to admit his understanding is incomplete?
quote:As for treating people as inferiors, well, intelligence is the one aspect that everyone discriminates on, whether they admit it or not. I'm just more open about it.
But you certainly are not open to the possibility that there may be people in the world that are more intelligent than you that disagree with certain views of yours. Either that or you define "intelligence" too narrowly.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose I might manage not to actively hate my sister, should some cult manage to suck her in. I do believe I would still argue quite violently with her, though.
quote:So you have enough knowledge to know that they are wrong? I find it ironic that you cling to your beliefs (ie. all theists are idiots) more strongly than some of the most ardent of theists.
Well, I've heard all the arguments, and I've made up my mind. If someone presents a new argument that I haven't heard before, I'll consider it carefully. So far that hasn't happened on this forum. It is permissible to make up one's mind about evidence, you know. In this case I dismiss it, and then act on that dismissal.
quote:But you certainly are not open to the possibility that there may be people in the world that are more intelligent than you that disagree with certain views of yours.
No, I'm not, actually. And this is for three reasons : First, I really am very intelligent. Second, so are my colleagues, some of them even smarter than me, and they agree with me on the subject. In fact, of all the scientists I know personally and admire as intelligent, not one is a theist. Third, whenever I argue with a theist, if that theist is honest, sooner or later the argument comes down to "Well, this is what I believe because it makes me feel good." (enochville did reach this point quite quickly, which does at least argue a certain basic honesty.) That's just not a very good way to convince me of intelligence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make me laugh, KoM. It's amazing how much you cling to your intelligence. I mean, there are so many parallels between you and the greatest of the world's religious fanatics. I don't see how you are any better than the people you have so much contempt for. Frankly, there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that can change my belief in God. I believe that God acts according to the laws of nature. My belief is not the typical, "God said it should be done and *poof* there it was" kind of belief. That just doesn't make sense to me. Do you not think that an all-powerful being could not possibly manipulate things in such a way that there would be absolutely no evidence of involvement? Why would he do that? Who cares? I don't. It doesn't matter to me. I believe what I believe because I've seen what following the things I've been taught has done for my life. I've also seen what ignoring those teachings does to me. I much prefer the way things go for me when I do the things I've been taught. Intelligence is nothing to me. Understanding is everything. I want to understand people. I want to understand what drives them to act the way they do, what makes them happy, what makes them sad. And frankly, your actions reveal some of the most base and primitive characteristics of human nature. I don't care what you believe. It is not religion that causes war and hatred. It's unyeilding, unfeeling attitudes such as your own, regardless of what brings that attitude out, that causes all the the evil in this world. Frankly, you are nothing to me, KoM. Just a tiny little man who thinks he's everything. And I'm sorry if you'll never be anything more than that to me.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I've heard all the arguments, and I've made up my mind. If someone presents a new argument that I haven't heard before, I'll consider it carefully. So far that hasn't happened on this forum. It is permissible to make up one's mind about evidence, you know. In this case I dismiss it, and then act on that dismissal.
I guess I'm confused. Sometimes you say that some type of god cannot possibly exist and anybody that entertains the idea that he may exist is an idiot and that there is no possible way that you are wrong. Then you say that the great part of science is that they never admit that they know all that there is to know. They fully realize that they may have an incomplete understanding due to limited resources and knowledge and so stand ready to revise any theory when new information is found. Then you go back to saying that all theists are most definitely wrong. And then you come back and say that you are open to ideas (although you already know they are wrong). It's one thing to believe firmly in the evidence you have. It's quite another to believe that someone is completely wrong even though you can't prove it.
quote:First, I really am very intelligent.
This I do not doubt, though I think you'd be very interested in this link. Interesting link
quote:if that theist is honest, sooner or later the argument comes down to "Well, this is what I believe because it makes me feel good."
No. The argument comes down to, "Well, we can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Because of that limitation, this is why I choose to believe in God." That in itself does make any statement about intelligence. It's your concept of what you believe an intelligent person is that convinces you of intelligence, or the lack thereof.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humility, now, there's an interesting virtue. I'm not certain about this, but I believe it's only with Christianity that it gets its status as a Really Good Thing, at least in Western culture. (I admit to not being quite certain how Buddhists and Hindus feel about it. I know the latter are big on mortification of the flesh, but do they also think humility is a good thing?)
Now, I do think you might have done better to link to this page, which gives the actual definition of the word. Including the etymology :
quote:Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis, low, lowly, from humus, ground.
Isn't it interesting that a religion which survived on donations and by supporting the power of kings, should seek to convince its listeners that being lowly is a good thing?
quote:Sometimes you say that some type of god cannot possibly exist and anybody that entertains the idea that he may exist is an idiot and that there is no possible way that you are wrong.
I do not think I have actually said this; as I agreed at the start of this thread, it is certainly possible in principle for any number of gods to exist.
quote:Then you say that the great part of science is that they never admit that they know all that there is to know. They fully realize that they may have an incomplete understanding due to limited resources and knowledge and so stand ready to revise any theory when new information is found.
Right. Remind me again which part of the information presented on this thread was new? The other good thing about science is that when a theory is discredited, it's damn well dropped. That's how we make progress.
quote: Then you go back to saying that all theists are most definitely wrong. And then you come back and say that you are open to ideas (although you already know they are wrong).
I do not think I said the latter. I said "If any theist should present new evidence, I would consider it carefully." Emphasis on new. I do not see where in this I pre-dismissed anything.
As for all theists being definitely wrong, well, they are, based on the available evidence. I don't really feel it's necessary to make that kind of qualifier every time I post something, but I hope that makes my position clearer.
quote:No. The argument comes down to, "Well, we can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Because of that limitation, this is why I choose to believe in God." That in itself does make any statement about intelligence.
I prefer my own formulation, but I think yours is about equivalent. It comes back to the argument I had with Tres earlier in the thread : In the absence of evidence, is it reasonable to believe in an entity? If you say yes, then you are logically bound to also believe in the IPU, etc, etc. Or if you prefer only to believe in feel-good things, which admittedly the IPU is not ("No, of course she's not safe. She's the Unicorn. But she's Good. Safe, indeed! *snort*") there's things like "Jennifer Lopez loves me dearly," or "The aliens will land tomorrow and solve all our problems". (Ok, that one is fairly closely related to religion.) I call such a position foolish.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that KoM hasn't actually identified what he really believes yet. I'll see if I can help.
Atheists are usually characterized by one or two of three statements: "I believe there is no God," "I don't believe there's a God," and "I believe there is no evidence of God."
Anybody who actually takes one of these views would be tolerant of intelligent people (like the majority of Hatrackers) who claim to be convinced of the existence of God through evidence, because none of those views precludes it as a possibility. Unfortunately, KoM isn't tolerant; therefore, his view can't be any of those three. Modus Tollens saves the day.
It's "There is no God," or "There is no evidence of God." Maybe both. I lean more toward the latter in KoM's case. There is no evidence; therefore, your evidence is false or cannot support your hypothesis. QED.
If this isn't the case, maybe someone can please explain to me how it's possible to hold one of the three main atheist viewpoints and still be full of contempt for anyone who disagrees.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it interesting that a religion which survived on donations and by supporting the power of kings, should seek to convince its listeners that being lowly is a good thing?
Who associates humility with being lowly? I was thinking primarily of the first definition: not arrogant or prideful. I don't think Christianity is the only group that feels that's a good thing. Well, at least I hope not.
quote:As for all theists being definitely wrong, well, they are, based on the available evidence.
I'm sorry but no matter how smart you think you are, you are not qualified to make that statement.
quote:In the absence of evidence, is it reasonable to believe in an entity?
Oh yes, I keep forgetting that your interpretation of evidence is the only one that's correct.
Added: As much fun as this discussion is proving to be, I have other plans for the evening which I believe will be even more fun than conversing with you. I would love to continue this later, though I don't know what exactly that would accomplish.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me. They don't need to include it in their list, but they need to understand that it's perfectly acceptable for a rational person to do so.
It's that hurdle KoM's having troubles with for the most part. I think he doesn't want to acknowledge it, either, because then he'd have to admit that the lot of us theists are actually rational beings.
Not all evidence can be objective. Specifically, predictions that have to do with how the experimenter reacts to certain actions simply cannot be objective. To test them, you have to become a subject, and that's all there is to it. I acknowledge that this is outside the realm of science (which demands objective repeatability), but it's not outside the realm of a general search for truth.
I love my children. I can't prove it, and I can't provide anyone with an objective, repeatable experiment, but I have plenty of subjective evidence. Some truths can't be obtained any other way.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence.
I refuse to take into account contradictory evidence. All those Moslems, Satanists, Aesirtru, and whatnot make exactly the same claim for their particular fairy tale. They all seem very sincere. But all that subjective evidence cancels out, leaving nothing. If the world were split into miserable atheists and happy theists, you might have a case. But it itn't. There are plenty of unhappy theists about, some of them unhappy to such a degree that they will kill themselves over a point of politics. So this argument proves nothing except that some people are happy. Gee, what a surprise.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you're confused with what this thread is about.
If I have subjective evidence that I love my children, and someone else has subjective evidence that I hate them, yes, that would cancel out, in a sense. You wouldn't be obliged to believe either of us. But it doesn't mean that we're both irrational. We could both be perfectly rational and still have opposing beliefs.
That's what this thread was about: whether theists can be rational. It's not about what's actually true, funny enough, but you keep trying to make it into that.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence? And you're quite right, I don't accept the subjective evidence that people give for their religions, for the reasons I outlined above. The point is, neither should you.
As a matter of fact, I think your point, about having to become a subject, cuts both ways. Have you tried, lately, dropping your belief in your god, and seeing what kind of person that makes you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
I think that hating a group of people because of what they believe is irrational. You seem to be doing that. My goodness, you're irrational. You're the most irrational person I've ever seen in my entire life! Holy cow! What an irrational being! There's never been another person on earth more irrational than you! Do you realize how much energy and time you waste trying to convince believers of their lack of intelligence? I "waste" less time on religion that you do in pointless arguments. It's all really funny to me.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence? And you're quite right, I don't accept the subjective evidence that people give for their religions, for the reasons I outlined above. The point is, neither should you.
Once more, with feeling: some truths are inaccessible without an appeal to subjective evidence. Surely you believe this. Not everything is objectively, independently testable. Science has its limits on truth-seeking.
That being the case - that some subjective evidence must be considered - who are you to tell me what kind of subjective evidence I ought to consider (even if none at all) and then, when I don't, call me irrational? A rational person is at liberty to accept whatever kind of evidence is available. He should take its reliability into account, of course, and I do.
I'm not asking you to accept my subjective evidence. I'm asking you to accept that I have subjective evidence. You don't even have to believe me to do that - just say, "Okay, but that doesn't apply to me." Anybody who can see the fine distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" ought to be able to figure this out.
quote:As a matter of fact, I think your point, about having to become a subject, cuts both ways. Have you tried, lately, dropping your belief in your god, and seeing what kind of person that makes you?
Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have. And guess what - their predictions held, and I was unable to reject the hypothesis that they were giving me good counsel. I'm not going to go into detail - this isn't a confessional - but yes, I've tested most of these predictions both ways.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
If one believes in something irrationally which is true, does that make it any less true?
No one is completely rational, not even you - have you succeeded yet in tearing away any of us from our beliefs? Very few, if any...yet you keep trying. It seems that you believe something will happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
No, it is not. Sort of by definition, you know?
The question is one of evidence. Also, whether evidence needs to be of "proof" strength, or whether strong circumstantial evidence can suffice.
KoM, you don't get to define the terms ahead of time to force a result to your liking. That's not honest. Anyone can say, "I define evidence this way, and that kind of evidence is lacking; therefore this isn't rational." You're just chasing your tail with that. Trying to justify a conclusion that you've already decided on.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Once more, with feeling : Is it rational to believe in something in the absence of evidence?
No, it is not. Sort of by definition, you know?
Thank you. Now we can move on to the evidence, right?
quote:The question is one of evidence. Also, whether evidence needs to be of "proof" strength, or whether strong circumstantial evidence can suffice.
I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence. But since that isn't the case - in fact, plenty of people give 'internal' evidence that directly contradicts that faith - internal evidence is plainly not good enough. If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - then I think few DAs would prosecute. Sufficiently contradictory evidence is useless.
It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
quote:Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have.
Um, no. Apart from going to church, which I guess you can do for the purely social aspects, atheists and theists define living well in pretty much the same ways. So if that's all you require, why not drop the extraneous belief? You've only got so much brain, you know - filling it up with distracting clutter is a bad idea.
quote:If one believes in something irrationally which is true, does that make it any less true?
Less true, no. More rational, also no. Rationality is the stronger criterion; and because we cannot ultimately determine truth, the only useful one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence.
I completely disagree. I don't think it'd even be weak circumstantial evidence. Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It isn't "a lot of people feel that way". It's "observable circumstances are consistent with the premise". Strong circumstantial evidence is when it's not only consistent with the premise, but when it is strongly consistent. In other words, when the circumstance becomes increasingly difficult to explain without the premise.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But since that isn't the case
<sigh> See, you know what happens when you assume? You wind up continuing down a silly path. Your "since that isn't the case" is empty, because no one claimed it to be the case. Except you.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
But increasingly irrelevant to the question at hand. "Emotions are not a tool of cognition". I know there are people who try and use them that way, but you can't blame me for people like that. They exist in all quarters.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I suggest you take another look at comrade trouser's post :
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me.
Since that is what I was arguing against before you jumped in, I (once more completely failing to read your mind; so sorry!) assumed this was the circumstantial evidence you referred to. If not, are you going to be putting forth ID again? We;ve already got a thread for that, but let me assure you, you have not convinced me that there is anything at all that cannot be accounted for without the Easter Bunny.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: starLisa, I suggest you take another look at comrade trouser's post :
quote:The problem is that KoM refuses to take into account subjective evidence. I don't mean to say that it should be accepted it without question - but if I say that the primary reason I believe in God is that keeping his commandments makes me and the people around me happy, anyone listening should understand that that's very strong evidence for me.
Since that is what I was arguing against before you jumped in, I (once more completely failing to read your mind; so sorry!) assumed this was the circumstantial evidence you referred to. If not, are you going to be putting forth ID again? We;ve already got a thread for that, but let me assure you, you have not convinced me that there is anything at all that cannot be accounted for without the Easter Bunny.
I wasn't referring to that post. I was referring to your post in which you were responding to me. I had no idea that you were lumping in something someone else said. For the record, I completely disagree with Lord Trousers. "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, it seems we agree at least a little more than I thought. However, if I am correct in believing that you are going to propose the Torah, plus Intelligent Design, as your circumstantial evidence - then I'm going to stand by 'that ain't evidence', for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread and the ID one. If you have something else, speak up now, or forever hold thy peace!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiousity, starLisa: which part do you disagree with? I'm not trying to start an argument - it just wasn't clear from what you wrote.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm willing to accept circumstantial evidence; I am asserting that there is none - because contradictory evidence cancels out. If everyone in the world said "Well, I can feel that the god of Abraham is the right one", then that would be strong circumstantial evidence. But since that isn't the case - in fact, plenty of people give 'internal' evidence that directly contradicts that faith - internal evidence is plainly not good enough. If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - then I think few DAs would prosecute. Sufficiently contradictory evidence is useless.
Good gracious, I thought you said you were intelligent.
YES, it cancels out - to the outside observer, trying to judge who is right. That I have to keep bringing this up tells me you're not really making an effort. (Are we that far beneath you?) We're not trying to decide who's right, we're trying to decide who's rational.
I only have so many ways to emphasize text on a web forum, and you're reaching the limit. If I have to make this statement again, it'll be in all caps. I don't like to yell. Please try to understand this one single point, okay?
I'll put it in a more abstract setting: suppose you are given a set of five dots and asked to fit a function to it with least squares error. You have some prior knowledge about the problem. Suppose you fit a line. Another person is given the same problem, but has slightly different prior knowledge. He draws a quadratic.
Do these conclusions cancel each other out? Are you both wrong? Possibly. Are you each rational? YES. The point is that both people, given the same data, came up with different answers. This stupid little example - the likes of which, by the way, comes up an awful lot in my graduate studies - proves that it's possible for rational people to disagree. It's even possible for them to disagree with you.
Back to your example: If two witnesses agree that there has been a killing, but disagree on the culprit, where the death took place, what time it was, the murder weapon, and the identity of the victim - are they both irrational in their beliefs about the crime?
Maybe. It's much more likely you've got the wrong person or people as witnesses, so this is sort of a nonsense example. The thing is, religions don't differ that much - they generally have much more in common than not. Religion is more like two people disagreeing on the culprit, agreeing on most of the other general details, and disagreeing on a lot of small details. In that case, I'd say both witnesses are rational. Small details tend to look very different from different points of view.
quote:It's also rather interesting that people tend very strongly to 'feel' that the god their father worshipped is the right one. Bit of an interesting correlation, that.
It's a commentary on the reliability of the evidence. If you've got sufficient evidence of less than perfect reliability, though, you can still believe and be perfectly rational. Bayesian inference systems like Kalman filters do this all the time.
quote:
quote:Not lately, no. I've tried it in the past, and it didn't work out. Nowadays, I've amassed too much evidence to disbelieve outright - I just can't do it and be honest with myself.
What you're really after, I think, is this question: "Have you recently tried acting opposite what the scriptures prescribe?" Yes, I have.
Um, no. Apart from going to church, which I guess you can do for the purely social aspects, atheists and theists define living well in pretty much the same ways. So if that's all you require, why not drop the extraneous belief? You've only got so much brain, you know - filling it up with distracting clutter is a bad idea.
This misunderstanding is my fault. There are things that theists define as living well that atheists just don't.
Here's an example. My scriptures say that an appeal to Christ will immediately begin to bring about relief from guilt. Atheists wouldn't experience that, having no reason to appeal to Christ. I have - and I've tried it both ways. I've let guilt fester, I've tried other ways to make it disappear, and done other things in this area borne of stubborn pride. Only an appeal to Christ works and brings peace. I've experimented on both sides of this prediction, and found that it held.
Any single example can be explained by something else, but I've done it many times. Of course, we could admit dementia as an explanation. The thing is, I've experienced some things that can't be explained by that. Here's an example - a time where I suddenly knew something that, based on material science, I shouldn't have known.
In my church, we (fathers) give blessings to our little children. Officially, it's to name them, but we say other things as the Spirit directs.
I was blessing my son Joseph. I said some things that were surprising to me, things that taught me about myself and about him - but it was what I didn't say that was most useful. In the middle of it, I suddenly knew that he was a very intelligent little boy. The knowledge was accompanied by a feeling so strong that I couldn't speak for a while.
Yeah, so he was three months old at the time.
Fast-forward almost two years. He had never said a word, or even pointed. He walked around grunting a lot. We started getting worried, because if language is significantly delayed, it impedes a child's aptitude to reason later in life. My mother brought up autism, which we hadn't considered yet, and we freaked out and took him to a doctor.
There are a few different treatments for language delay, and we picked one under the assumption that there was an intelligent kid in there who didn't know how to express himself. In other words, my extra knowledge helped us make a critical decision about his development. We taught him sign language, and his language skills exploded.
So is he really intelligent? Fast forward to now: he's 3 1/2 years old, and he reads Dr. Seuss books to himself. We know it's not all memorization because he backs up and sounds out words when he realizes he gets them wrong, and he reads books he hasn't had read to him. We didn't even teach him - we taught his sister, who is two years older. He must have been listening to that, and memorizing words and drawing inferences about letter sounds when we read to him.
It's not the only time I've had knowledge poured into my head from an outside source, but it's one of the most dramatic, and the one of a few that best isolates all the variables. If enough evidence like this piles up, believe me, it makes a believer out of you.
[ November 14, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: lord trousers ]
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, and you remember the hits and forget the misses. About your guilt, I'm sorry your church programmed you so well. If I feel guilty about something, I generally try making amends to the one I've offended, instead.
There do exist points on which reasonable men might differ; but the existence of a god is not one of them. Your point about prior assumption is spot on : If you did not already believe in a god, none of the stuff you've quoted to me would be evidence for one. So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
Returning to your analogy about the least-squares fit, yes, one of those people is, in fact, wrong. You can determine which one by taking more data points, or measuring the ones you have more precisely. Now, before you start shouting, if they both have some theoretical justification for their fit shape, then neither is necessarily being irrational; however, the one whose fit is worse should be prepared to give up his theory. (Assuming of course that the data are good enough that a fit would be conclusive.) But if there is no reasonable theory at all, then yes, I'd say they are both being irrational, at least if they stick by their proposed fit shapes come hell and high water. The analogy begins to break down here, because different fit shapes are a bit like religions, but there's no fit shape to match atheism, except maybe 'these data are completely random'. But even then you'd get some kind of fit, which come to think of it may mean it's a good analogy after all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rationality is the stronger criterion; and because we cannot ultimately determine truth, the only useful one.
Love is rarely rational. Yet life is so much darker without it.
quote:So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
When I dig down to the core of it, my evidence of God is that He told me that He exists. How is that irrational?
Elder Boyd K. Packer:
quote:The skeptic will say that to bear testimony when you may not know you possess one is to condition yourself; that the response is manufactured. Well, one thing for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit.
You can stand there arrogant in your armour of unbelief and ridicule those of us who believe. You can lecture us rudely about your superiority, your pride, because you cannot see what we can. And how can we respond? As well try to describe the sunrise to a blind man. But we still know something that you will never let yourself know.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, yes, and you remember the hits and forget the misses. About your guilt, I'm sorry your church programmed you so well. If I feel guilty about something, I generally try making amends to the one I've offended, instead.
I suspected this response. Thanks for assuming that I don't. At any rate, I'm talking about specific offenses against God (which, again, atheists don't have to worry about) and against myself.
I don't forget the misses. It turns out - and I'd probably be burned alive by some for claiming this - but scriptural predictions, for me, have a success rate in the low 90's. Yes, sometimes they don't work. (Gasp!) The thing is, they've proven themselves so useful that 1) I'm not prepared to give them up on the sub-10% that don't turn out, and 2) the correct ones' overall usefulness indicates that it's not necessarily God's problem.
quote:There do exist points on which reasonable men might differ; but the existence of a god is not one of them.
Quite a strong statement. Speaking of circular reasoning...
quote:Your point about prior assumption is spot on : If you did not already believe in a god, none of the stuff you've quoted to me would be evidence for one. So if you dig one level deeper, you think you have evidence of your god, because... you believe in your god. Doesn't sound quite so rational when you put it that way, does it?
...and if you dig one level deeper, you can always find some reason to dismiss someone else's subjective evidence of God, because... you believe there isn't any.
Isn't rational thought wonderful?
quote:Returning to your analogy about the least-squares fit, yes, one of those people is, in fact, wrong. You can determine which one by taking more data points, or measuring the ones you have more precisely. Now, before you start shouting, if they both have some theoretical justification for their fit shape, then neither is necessarily being irrational; however, the one whose fit is worse should be prepared to give up his theory.
Yep.
quote:(Assuming of course that the data are good enough that a fit would be conclusive.) But if there is no reasonable theory at all, then yes, I'd say they are both being irrational, at least if they stick by their proposed fit shapes come hell and high water. The analogy begins to break down here, because different fit shapes are a bit like religions, but there's no fit shape to match atheism, except maybe 'these data are completely random'. But even then you'd get some kind of fit, which come to think of it may mean it's a good analogy after all.
Of course it is. It so happens that inductive bias, as described in information theory and machine learning, is an extremely good model of human bias in general. There are some results from the study of bias that you, thinking your beliefs the only possible rational ones, might not like. Here's one: you can't learn or generalize without bias. Another: you can't prove that one bias (or one person's bias) is better than another in general. There's no logical way to approach it.
You can't prove that one person's evidence standards are better than another's. You can make an argument that's convincing to some - and usually to yourself - but that's about it.
Where the analogy breaks down is that, in the mathematical model, only objective evidence, available to both people, is considered. In the human model, this isn't necessarily so. We're often concerned with truth that has no objective evidence - and I'm not talking about just religion.
I'm sorry, but as much as you'd like it to be so, neither you nor anyone else who has ever lived has built his entire belief system from concrete first principles and objective evidence only. As soon as you realize your own bias, you might be ready to forgive theists of theirs.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to post once in this thread and leave it as is. This will probably offend just about everyone here (I apologize to those I like in advance), but it needs to be said(written).
Arguing over the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
