quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
So then we have a misunderstanding.
I do seem to remember an article by OSC telling a story about how arrogant some of his relatives are about being descended from some of the first members of the Utah LDS church. However, I'm sure not all Mormons are equally focused on such things.
People will from time to time mention being a member of one of the early families as a means to establish a depth of belief or heritage. But there is no expression of that belief insofar as church members being given preferential treatment.
It's much like an American finding out I am proud to be a direct descendent of William Bradford, second Governor of Plymouth Colony. It's cool, but I wait in line at immigration just like everybody else.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: Disingenuous, or mistaken perhaps?
Oh, nevermind then. The "stranger in a strange land" quote, as well as Moses' life story, is so well known even among nonbelievers (thanks to movies like The Ten Commandments, The Prince of Egypt, as well as passover, and Jewish and Christian culture in general) that I figured you had to be referring to some obscure LDS belief that Moses' sons weren't legitimate or something. Heck, even OSC wrote about them and made them characters in Stone Tables.
quote:I don't know how we got to the LDS church from there, but the fact remains the records states Moses ordained Joshua to succeed him.
Indeed, though Moses' children (and their descendents) were given positions of power and prestige, and highly esteemed by the Children of Israel.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, nevermind then. The "stranger in a strange land" quote, as well as Moses' life story, is so well known even among nonbelievers (thanks to movies like The Ten Commandments, The Prince of Egypt, as well as passover, and Jewish and Christian culture in general) that I figured you had to be referring to some obscure LDS belief that Moses' sons weren't legitimate or something. Heck, even OSC wrote about them and made them characters in Stone Tables.
Now that you mention it, I can recall his sons being shown in The Ten Commandments, but not in Prince of Egypt. And because his sons don't go on to do anything super notable, I guess my mind just discarded them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re-reading that post I realized the tone isn't very clear: my intent isn't to be condesending, just explaining why I made the assumption that I did. I know LDS have some additional scriptures regarding Moses (which I've yet to read unfortunately) so my brain just went "oh, he's talking about that" without considering other options first.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
quote: Among Joseph and Emma’s posterity are now some 125 living adult descendants who are members of the Church, and of them, at least 14 have served full-time missions.
posted
I'll try reverse psychology: hey, Steven, please continue to be an adverserial, sneering interrogator even to people known for courtesy. And then at the end of each instance, make sure to take on a one-line boilerplate such as 'I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds'. It's certainly not an embarrassment nor is it an obvious falsehood.
-----
Would it hurt that who-knows-why steven ego to just say, "Are you sure, BlackBlade? I've read otherwise and I have a difficult time believing it." You completely lack the moral or intellectual credibility around here to be going around shouting for answers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll try reverse psychology: hey, Steven, please continue to be an adverserial, sneering interrogator even to people known for courtesy. And then at the end of each instance, make sure to take on a one-line boilerplate such as 'I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds'. It's certainly not an embarrassment nor is it an obvious falsehood.
-----
Would it hurt that who-knows-why steven ego to just say, "Are you sure, BlackBlade? I've read otherwise and I have a difficult time believing it." You completely lack the moral or intellectual credibility around here to be going around shouting for answers.
I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
I mean, they're all going to be proven wrong in a few decades anyway, if Moore's Law keeps going long enough, because we'll eventually have a Grand Unified Theory that can be experimentally proven. Who has time to be patient? I don't have any ambition of converting any of them. Science will handle that, whether I'm alive or dead. There are way more interesting things to do in life than be so nice to religious people that they actually stop believing. I'm too busy figuring out how the world works to make BFFs with people who, deep down, don't really care how the world works, and are basing their worldview on something other than observable fact and common sense.
Again, no offense, I have no wish to be harsh to the religious, I'm just being honest. This is what's in my heart. I generally don't talk religion IRL, because this is what happens. Either that, or people just get bored with me. I apparently have the power to put people to sleep with my musings about the deeper nature of the Universe.
And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
quote: Among Joseph and Emma’s posterity are now some 125 living adult descendants who are members of the Church, and of them, at least 14 have served full-time missions.
quote:I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
If I hadn't read so many of your posts over the years, I would seriously wonder if a statement this hypocritical when made by you was meant to be secretly ironic.
quote:And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Wait, you forgot to tack on your 'hey, I'm just poking a little fun' transparent BS on the end of this, Steven.
quote:Fascinating. I'd never have thought it.
Never thought to do five or maybe even ten minutes' worth of looking around before you demand people PROVE IT? Yeah, I know you'd never have thought it. Nor would you apparently think to say 'whoops, sorry for being so not-meaning-to-be-harsh, guys, I was mistaken about that' either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
If I hadn't read so many of your posts over the years, I would seriously wonder if a statement this hypocritical when made by you was meant to be secretly ironic.
quote:And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Wait, you forgot to tack on your 'hey, I'm just poking a little fun' transparent BS on the end of this, Steven.
quote:Fascinating. I'd never have thought it.
Never thought to do five or maybe even ten minutes' worth of looking around before you demand people PROVE IT? Yeah, I know you'd never have thought it. Nor would you apparently think to say 'whoops, sorry for being so not-meaning-to-be-harsh, guys, I was mistaken about that' either.
You still haven't answered my question.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not even your question. Though it is understandable that you'd want to outsource your witticisms to...well, nearly anyone really, but xkcd is a good choice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven - I don't know if you can hear me underneath that dogpile, but overall I think you're right. The only thing seperating scientology and the lds is a century's worth of time between the birth of two con men. Give scientology another hundred years and it'll be taken every bit as seriously as the mormon faith. After all, people alive today remember meeting Hubbard. No one remembers Smith.
You're also correct in mentioning that some Mormons on this very board talk like they already have their second wife picked out and they're just waiting for the pesky feds to get their noses out important church patriarchy bs.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing seperating scientology and the lds is a century's worth of time between the birth of two con men.
I think that's more than a little unfair; the LDS church seems to do a great deal more good for its members and its communities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'll grant you that. Even I can admit that of all the religions I've come in contact with, the LDS walks the walk more often then not. But let's not sell scientology short. A hundred and thirty odd years ago the Mormons were busy marrying as many women as they could get their hands on and trying to start their own country. They got better. Maybe scientology will, too.
And from a logic and reason standpoint, Xenu and thetans on the one hand, magical disappearing golden plates and ancient North American abrahamic cultures on the other. What a big difference.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Okay, I'll grant you that. Even I can admit that of all the religions I've come in contact with, the LDS walks the walk more often then not. But let's not sell scientology short. A hundred and thirty odd years ago the Mormons were busy marrying as many women as they could get their hands on and trying to start their own country. They got better. Maybe scientology will, too.
And from a logic and reason standpoint, Xenu and thetans on the one hand, magical disappearing golden plates and ancient North American abrahamic cultures on the other. What a big difference.
You're more than stepping over disparagement of other's religious beliefs. Stop please.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Mormons didn't practice polygamy back then? Or they didn't try to secede and start their own country? Or are you offended that someone compared the Jaredite nation to Xenu, even though there is every bit of evidence for one as for the other?
How would you have worded the above? Or is stating the above verboten on hatrack?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
It warms my heart to see you defend Hubbard and Scientology so.
But hey, my mistake. Everyone, both Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were genuine prophets of god. We should respect their teachings and their followers equally, and in no way, shape, or form did they deceive their followers. Xenu s heaven's dictator, and we'll be finding the ruins of the Jaredites tomorrow, I'm sure.
You have my apologies for my vicious blasphemy, and I pray that it didn't strike you blind. It won't happen again.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
My answer:
[/quote]Yes.[/quote]
steven's response:
quote:I don't know where you get the self-importance to predict future 'divine revelations', but it's mystifying. I mean, I've heard from at least a couple of Mormons here on Hatrack that they wouldn't mind a return to polygamy. Do you deny that at least some would be happy about that?
You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're trying to assure us that you are all far more mainstream than you really are. I understand that, it's a human impulse to try to fit in. However, a lot of non-Mormons here are pretty aware of the church's history. We're the wrong group to try to this with, I think, OK?
and
quote:I only jumped in when AFR decided he was going to predict the future.
Naw. I just shook the Magic 8 Ball I have on my desk.
The question was "Is it safe to say..." and my answer was yes. Given current trends and practices in the church, and given the legalization of polygamy happening in a world much like ours right now, then yes, it's safe to say that the LDS church would continue to prohibit polygamy and that most of the church would not begin calling for a reversal on that. I think it's a pretty reasonable observation.
I'm wondering if you would have still used up all the ROFLs in the universe had I said no. I'm thinking you wouldn't have, since that seems to square a little better with your view of the church. But I still would have been predicting the future.
P.S. Mormons, trying to fit in? And under the radar, too! Good thing the Mormon History Police are such hawkeyes, right?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we all know that if you wait a few days (or hours) that you'll be able to call the Prophet Hubbard a ***man just fine. We don't get to call Him that right now because that would open the door to calling Blackblade's prophet a ***man, and god forbid.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Yes, that was my mistake.
--------------
Samprimary: Believe what you want. You can't disparage others and their beliefs. There may not be any Scientologists here but there might. I wouldn't let a Christian call you a god-less heathen. Is there somebody trying to establish Hubbard's or Smith's authenticity? No proselyting here for the believers and non-believers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Yes, that was my mistake.
--------------
Samprimary: Believe what you want. You can't disparage others and their beliefs. There may not be any Scientologists here but there might. I wouldn't let a Christian call you a god-less heathen. Is there somebody trying to establish Hubbard's or Smith's authenticity? No proselyting here for the believers and non-believers.
Blackblade, you do realize that the main reason that us agnostics and atheists let you believers off so easy is because we're pretty sure it's just a matter of time until churches are all just empty buildings gathering dust, right?
And this is letting you off easy. I'd be raising holy Hades about you protecting L. Ron Hubbard if I thought Scientology would even exist in 50 or 100 years.
And you can think badly of me, or any other non-believer, if you want. However, as a group of humans, we're probably no more (or less) kind, loving, etc. than believers. It's not like you need a deity to practice the basic virtues. And you know what I think? They're really what matters. Everything else is window dressing, and, at best, only distracts slightly from the practice of the basic virtues.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
Oh, and atheists don't get offended at being called godless heathens. We laugh. We're mature like that, and we know that words are just words, unlike some people.
You heard the man, Sam. No disparaging the Holy Prophet Hubbard. Hell, you should be thanking him for showing us the Way to avoid Xenu's clutches for all eternity.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
I think it all depends on how long Moore's Law keeps going. People only need religious mental crutches because there's no Grand Unified Theory. Assuming we ever get there, I don't think people will choose Xenu over provable physics.
For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists. I don't think people would choose Xenu over repeatable scientific proof, at least not most people, and definitely not in the long run.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it takes ten years of schooling to truly grasp your theoretical GUT, then I guarantee you that people will still believe that god made the world in seven days and made Adam out of dust. Because that's easier, and who needs to think when there's this lovely book written in the Bronze Age to tell us how and why the universe exists.
How else do you explain so many people thinking evolutionary theory is false?
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
Oh, and atheists don't get offended at being called godless heathens. We laugh. We're mature like that, and we know that words are just words, unlike some people.
You heard the man, Sam. No disparaging the Holy Prophet Hubbard. Hell, you should be thanking him for showing us the Way to avoid Xenu's clutches for all eternity.
Yeah, because if I won't let you disparage a belief, then I must also be forcing you to adhere to it. It hardly matters if you are willing to be insulted by the religious. These are the rules here.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Blackblade, you do realize that the main reason that us agnostics and atheists let you believers off so easy is because we're pretty sure it's just a matter of time until churches are all just empty buildings gathering dust, right?
And this is letting you off easy. I'd be raising holy Hades about you protecting L. Ron Hubbard if I thought Scientology would even exist in 50 or 100 years.
Oh for pity's sake please don't say 'us agnostics and atheists' as though you speak for anyone but yourself. But in any event whatever the hell you mean about letting 'them' off easy, it's still ridiculous to say that the reason it's done is because of foreknowledge. It has as much to do with, you know, there being a whole hell of a lot more of 'them' than 'us', as it does with anything else.
As for this particular member of the very diverse group of people you were failing so badly at lumping together, I am deeply gratified that Hubbard is 'protected' in this way, not least for selfish reasons.
All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and for the record, I am very skeptical that 50% or even close to that actually believe what is commonly meant by 'Biblical creation'. Just because they're asked a short question absent context and don't have a bubble to describe what exactly they mean.
How many people does anyone here know that believe the Earth was created in seven 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago? Is it anywhere even close to 'half of them'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: If it takes ten years of schooling to truly grasp your theoretical GUT, then I guarantee you that people will still believe that god made the world in seven days and made Adam out of dust. Because that's easier, and who needs to think when there's this lovely book written in the Bronze Age to tell us how and why the universe exists.
How else do you explain so many people thinking evolutionary theory is false?
I assure you, I have a REAL gut. It's not very large, but it grows little by little, the older I get.
But here are my off-the-cuff thoughts on that. First, I would hope that we could cheaply augment human intelligence/knowledge easily at some point, so that anyone could become smart and educated relatively quickly and easily.
Secondly, who knows if the GUT is complex or not? Maybe it's fairly simple, at least in terms of the actual concept. No doubt the math would be insane, but not every concept that has insane math behind it is hard to grasp conceptually.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: is anyone discussing a Grand Unified Theory a scientist of any variety, or with any extensive reading or study? If your knowledge of science was skill of engineering, would I go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid a bridge built by you?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
when are you going to answer my question, dude?
Leaving that alone for the moment, though, first, I'm not whining about Hubbard, because I'm betting that Scientology, or any other religion, won't even exist in 100 years.
Secondly, dude, you do realize that Scientology, because of its tactics, is no longer recognized as a church in many, many countries around the world, right? That's not necessarily true of other New-Agey type of religions. Not because they are too small for governments to bother rescinding their status, but because they don't apply the same type of abusive tactics. The Church of Scientology has lost a lot of lawsuits in a lot of countries, and has been fined a lot of money in a lot of countries. take a look at the wiki:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Question: is anyone discussing a Grand Unified Theory a scientist of any variety, or with any extensive reading or study? If your knowledge of science was skill of engineering, would I go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid a bridge built by you?
When are you going to answer my question?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point, I'm curious how long you'll continue 'not insulting' me by asking it. I suspect that now that you've really dug in and committed to it, it'll be awhile.
Yes, you're clearly whining.
As for your last paragraph, I know a pretty decent amount about Hubbard. It was either Talk of the Nation or Fresh Air that aired a 45m interview with one of his newer biographers, and it was pretty damn interesting, the anatomy of a 'religion' such as Scientology, along with Hubbard's many, many failures in his life. I still remember the story of one of his first: a sailing voyage he advertised for, I believe it was when he was in his 20s, where nearly everyone abandoned it while it was still abroad. Or the very, very numerous writings he did for Hollywood, or his initially-secret HQ here in Florida.
Anyway, that last paragraph, *that's* how you attack the man without whining. Good on you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAIC, the Cburch of Scientology should not be covered by Hatrack's TOS. Their legal status in many countries should preclude such. Not that I care.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Blackblade could I post a similar paragraph detailing criticism of His Holy Prophet Smith's life, or would that be disparaging? I wouldn't want to offend the Prophet or his Light-blessed followers, especially the moderator ones.
And yeah, Rakeesh, I would believe that fifty percent of the people I know believe, literally, in biblical creation. You need to slum it more, education wise.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been moving, so I haven't been keeping current on my Hatrack, so I skimmed the last page of this thread to see if I wanted to read it all...and I don't.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
posted
No, Samprimary, I'm not. In particular of the three you're familiar with how things would shake out if the attacks took that form, and you're familiar with the fact that this ain't the public street corner, and you're familiar with the notion that not being able to say precisely what you want here doesn't mean you're barred from being critical.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Sam. No disparaging His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) This ain't no godless heathen streetcorner.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, Samprimary, I'm not. In particular of the three you're familiar with how things would shake out if the attacks took that form,
Yeah, not that I want to provide for an opportunity to give the wrong people the wrong ammunition at this time, but you're quite wrong, on both counts. Never seeing any investment on my part in openly disparaging Scientology takes some very pointed non-seeing of otherwise well-historied stuff.
Being not allowed to criticize l. ron hubbard and disparage scientology is something that I have done, have ample, unbroken interest in doing and would pointedly and purposefully make a point to continue as readily as if I were told I was not allowed to disparage the Westboro Baptist Church's founder and teachings.
But I haven't ever had to do so since the rule has never been enforced against me when I exercised it against either Scientology or the WBC. Barring some rare cases with Scientology (and none with WBC) it has not been exercised against anyone.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Hey Blackblade could I post a similar paragraph detailing criticism of His Holy Prophet Smith's life, or would that be disparaging? I wouldn't want to offend the Prophet or his Light-blessed followers, especially the moderator ones.
You're being intentionally grating, and I don't appreciate it. We have had many discussions about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. They have run the full gamut of what could be said about them. I don't have any special sympathies for criticisms about Mormonism. If you want to talk about how Polygamy caused familial problems fine. If you want to note that Joseph Smith believed he could fine treasure in the earth, and was hired to do so prior to finding the Book of Mormon, fine.
But you don't get to discuss those topics in such a manner that you are insulting and disparaging those who believe in those things. People here who believe in God *by and large* are very good about not talking about atheism in such a way that they are being insulting. But for some reason I ask atheists not to say something like in essence,
"Mormonism is the most ridiculous of all the major myths we can't get stupid people to let go of."
And suddenly it's like I've got them all under the lash, and Joseph Smith must be referred to as "the Prophet, peace be upon him."
I get that you all think Joseph Smith was nothing more than a con-man, and everybody who believes he was a prophet has crappy reasons for doing so. But if you want to post here, you agree that if a poster has a set of beliefs they hold, you don't get to mock them, or try to persuade them to abandon them.
So far the religious proselyting has been virtually zero, I wish that could be said for a-religious proselyting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well to be fair we've basically got Tittles and Steven doing it right now, and in the past there have been a a couple here and there who behaved very similarly from the other side of the question.
Of course, you could simply ban the obvious troll who has repeatedly over months gone out of his way to be a jackass and who has now repeatedly and knowingly violated some explicit rules in the past day or so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists.
How, for goodness sake, do you think this makes any sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
I think it all depends on how long Moore's Law keeps going. People only need religious mental crutches because there's no Grand Unified Theory. Assuming we ever get there, I don't think people will choose Xenu over provable physics.
For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists. I don't think people would choose Xenu over repeatable scientific proof, at least not most people, and definitely not in the long run.
Ah, he's read a book. And he thinks he knows something about the unified field theory. How, exactly, do you presume it would disprove the existence of a soul?
Einstein was closer than most anyone, and he certainly believed in God. I'm glad you're more intelligent than he. Are you the one who'll figure it out? Make sure you're wearing your tin-foil hat, so that the G-Men don't come after you.
And as a working electrical engineer, I'd really like you to explain what the smeg Moore's law has to do with the UFT. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Einstein was closer than most anyone, and he certainly believed in God.
Um... no. Einstein had a sense of wonder about the universe, a spiritual reverence even, which he sometimes expressed in terms of "God" but he didn't believe in God in the sense that most people mean when they use the term.
Some select quotes:
quote:I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
quote:I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
quote:I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
All of that aside, it's fallacious to argue an opinion based on who else holds it. Brilliant people often believe stupid things.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because his belief was not aligned with a mainstream religion doesn't mean he was an atheist.
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."
According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
