Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 08-12-2002, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TerryTryon:
But then, these Mormon gods necessarily lose all the characteristics which theologians are so fond of attributing to their god, such attributes being totally incompatible with Jehovah as described in the bible.

The Mormon response to this is the 8th Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." So a Mormon can sweep away any objections to inconsistencies in the Bible. That's why God revealed the Book of Mormon - to set the record straight.

Quote:

The Mormons' gods are so absurd that even the Mormons themselves refuse to discuss their attributes beyond bald assertions.

Bald assertions from God, through his prophets!

When I was 10, our family converted to Mormonism. Well actually, Mom and Dad decided we were going to, and so it was. I never acquired a "testimony" but the eternal progression thing was appealing enough to allow a suspension of disbelief for a while.

By 16 I was biding my time, going through the motions. Not long ago, I learned that former temple workers and many others had posted the scripts and detailed descriptions of the ceremonies, including some clandestine photos demonstrating the secret handshakes (the "Sure Sign of the Nail"). I had found the stuff by searching on Google ("pay lay ale" is a good term to use

).

Now, when I had reached majority I joined the Navy, to make it clear there was going to be no mission or anything like that. And I gave the church no thought since then, wasn't even curious. But now that I know what the secret temple stuff is, I find myself unable to see my family - the ones remaining active in the church - quite the same way.

It's like I've discovered that they really are Pod People.

WJ · 08-12-2002, 12:05 PM

Malcom!

I want to say thank you for that post as it was a breath of fresh air. The aspect I embrace is that word you used "change". Because the very essence of the idea for a creator of consciousness directly relates to our own Being, as it is logically consistent that "change" or predication is a requirement for such existence and aquisition of our knowledge about it.

So in your context of philosophy, things like Revelation (on a daily basis if you will) is part of that notion of predication. And while the empiricist would argue that all knowledge occurs thru the aposterior, Kant would try (albeit unsuccessfully) to convince us that there exists some form of necessary metaphysical knowledge (to use the term loosely) or innate need for humans to explore these types of questions thru the postulation/invention of a first cause-creator

Therefore, I agree that philosophically, agnosticism is much more logically consistent and certainly a more meaningful 'tool' or approach in debating EOG. Otherwise, when the atheist debates a God it seems like nothing more than a mere political statement.

We could change Russell's own statement to something like: some people are single during the week, and married on the weekends.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Dr S · 08-12-2002, 12:33 PM

(Walrus) What kind of proof is appropriate or, is substantial enough to meet a particular/specific criteria?
(S) My standard for acceptable proof isn't very high at all.
If I asked you "is there any milk in the refrigerator?" I would expect that you could be able to back up your claim to some degree. You looked, maybe you smelled the carton to see if it was fresh, maybe you even took a little sip or two.
You might even pick the carton up in your hand and show it to me. But you don't have to, I'll take your word for it.
That's the slip-shod level of proof that I find acceptable for an existential claim, be it for dairy products or gods. I'm not really concerned that you might be tricking me. Or that what looks, smells, feels and tastes like mike might actually be something else. This is close enough for me.

But if I ask you if there is milk in the fridge and you don't look. If you pull out a 2000 year old book about milk. If you claim that you know that there is milk because of the meaning milk has given to your life. If you claim that people cannot prove that there is no milk just because they can't perceive it. If you claim that milk exists on the dairy (spiritual) realm and so we shouldn't expect to see it even though you know it was real. If you told me that the only possible reason I had to think that the refrigerator was empty was that I was predisposed to disbelieve that there was milk in it�.
Well, that's a level that is even too slip-shod for me, and I'm easy.

TerryTryon · 08-12-2002, 12:47 PM

Walrus:

There is, I am told, some basic differences between monism, naturalism, and materialism, but in my understanding, they are near synonyms, so I list all three for the hell of it. Monism is the direct opposite of dualism, denying the need to posit a spiritual plane.

2. All organisms or devices which use electricity emit a electromagnetic field, but I fail to understand its significance to my post. Please explicate.

3. When I was a Christian, I experienced my share of revelations. Damn, if there is one thing the human species excels at, it is self-delusion. I am not calling anybody a liar, but if god has anything he wants me to know, he can't use a middleman.

Cosym · 08-12-2002, 12:49 PM

---We may all be "Agnostic", but so what, are you (agnostic preachers) trying to prove a point?---

I really don't like the sloppy definitions that people have developed for atheist/agnostic, etc.

As far as I am concerned, the only collection of definitions that makes any consistent sense is that atheism/theism is a binary based purely on belief in (specific, or all) gods, while agnosticism deals with knowledge.

The idea that atheism is _only_ a belief in no gods seems utterly incoherent, seeing as people are quite happy to call me an atheist despite the fact that I only lack belief IN gods. Only the broader definition of atheism gives us a complete spectrum of definition.

TooBad · 08-12-2002, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm_MacDohmnall:

One could only conclude that the philosophical person would consider the possibility of God even though they considered the probability impractical to daily application and therefore be Agnostic.

I have no problem describing myself as an atheist. I suppose, at a pinch, I am prepared to concede the *epistemic* possibility of God's existence, i.e. that God is not known not to exist. But epistemic possibility is such a tepid concession as barely to count as a concession at all. It is a weaker notion even than *logical* possibility. I will not concede the logical possibility of God's existence until such time as I am presented with a coherent definition of God. And I only admit epistemic possibility on the off-chance that there may be some such definition that I don't know about.

So I think to call myself "agnostic" would not do justice to my view.

TerryTryon · 08-12-2002, 01:07 PM

Kind Bud:
Exactly! My eight great-grandparents filled settling missions for Brigham Young. Myself, I filled a proselytizing mission in Germany. But, I get the same wierd feeling whenever I speak to any of my siblings or cousins.

One time in testimony meeting, an elderly geek stood up and said, "Even if it is proven beyond all doubt that "The Pearl of Great Price" is false, I have believed in it for sixty years and I guess I'll believe in it a little longer. I thought the old man said the most foolish thing I had ever heard. Little did I know and less did I research that "The Book of Abraham" had been, at that time, proven wrong beyond doubt--making me a bigger fool by far than he.

Letting the herd instinct rule the intellect is a pathetic thing, especially if one is looking in the mirror.

WJ · 08-12-2002, 01:08 PM

Dr S- thanks. In my case, I've taken a sip or two or three or four. As I understand it, and as you so very well put it, taking a sip, then explaining the taste, is the problem. Kinda like describing the color red to a blind person. Agree?

Jayhawker Soule · 08-12-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm_MacDohmnall:
<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm" target="_blank">Bertrand Russell reference.</a>

... Therefore I choose agnosticism over atheism or the absolute belief in God. Which of course also leaves me open to changing probabilities or impossibilities of such an existance and interested in the debate.

Certainly you would not treat an existential claim of Sentient Jellybeans from Barnard's Star with such patience. What, in your opinion, is required of a claim to warrant agnosticism?

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Dr S · 08-12-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Kinda like describing the color red to a blind person. Agree?

Almost but not quite agree. Make that "Kinda like a blind person describing the color red to another blind person."
You see the problem isn't that I'm blind and have nothing to make me think that there is such a thing as red.
The problem is that you are also blind and claiming that you know all about red while all the time admitting that you have no way of knowing what you claim to know.
The fact that there really is a red doesn't have any bearing on your claim. Because you yourself have no way of knowing this any more than I do.

08-12-2002, 12:05 PM	#42
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Malcom! I want to say thank you for that post as it was a breath of fresh air. The aspect I embrace is that word you used "change". Because the very essence of the idea for a creator of consciousness directly relates to our own Being, as it is logically consistent that "change" or predication is a requirement for such existence and aquisition of our knowledge about it. So in your context of philosophy, things like Revelation (on a daily basis if you will) is part of that notion of predication. And while the empiricist would argue that all knowledge occurs thru the aposterior, Kant would try (albeit unsuccessfully) to convince us that there exists some form of necessary metaphysical knowledge (to use the term loosely) or innate need for humans to explore these types of questions thru the postulation/invention of a first cause-creator Therefore, I agree that philosophically, agnosticism is much more logically consistent and certainly a more meaningful 'tool' or approach in debating EOG. Otherwise, when the atheist debates a God it seems like nothing more than a mere political statement. We could change Russell's own statement to something like: some people are single during the week, and married on the weekends. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2002, 12:33 PM	#43
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	(Walrus) What kind of proof is appropriate or, is substantial enough to meet a particular/specific criteria? (S) My standard for acceptable proof isn't very high at all. If I asked you "is there any milk in the refrigerator?" I would expect that you could be able to back up your claim to some degree. You looked, maybe you smelled the carton to see if it was fresh, maybe you even took a little sip or two. You might even pick the carton up in your hand and show it to me. But you don't have to, I'll take your word for it. That's the slip-shod level of proof that I find acceptable for an existential claim, be it for dairy products or gods. I'm not really concerned that you might be tricking me. Or that what looks, smells, feels and tastes like mike might actually be something else. This is close enough for me. But if I ask you if there is milk in the fridge and you don't look. If you pull out a 2000 year old book about milk. If you claim that you know that there is milk because of the meaning milk has given to your life. If you claim that people cannot prove that there is no milk just because they can't perceive it. If you claim that milk exists on the dairy (spiritual) realm and so we shouldn't expect to see it even though you know it was real. If you told me that the only possible reason I had to think that the refrigerator was empty was that I was predisposed to disbelieve that there was milk in it�. Well, that's a level that is even too slip-shod for me, and I'm easy.

08-12-2002, 12:47 PM	#44
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	Walrus: There is, I am told, some basic differences between monism, naturalism, and materialism, but in my understanding, they are near synonyms, so I list all three for the hell of it. Monism is the direct opposite of dualism, denying the need to posit a spiritual plane. 2. All organisms or devices which use electricity emit a electromagnetic field, but I fail to understand its significance to my post. Please explicate. 3. When I was a Christian, I experienced my share of revelations. Damn, if there is one thing the human species excels at, it is self-delusion. I am not calling anybody a liar, but if god has anything he wants me to know, he can't use a middleman.

08-12-2002, 12:49 PM	#45
Cosym Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York Posts: 22	---We may all be "Agnostic", but so what, are you (agnostic preachers) trying to prove a point?--- I really don't like the sloppy definitions that people have developed for atheist/agnostic, etc. As far as I am concerned, the only collection of definitions that makes any consistent sense is that atheism/theism is a binary based purely on belief in (specific, or all) gods, while agnosticism deals with knowledge. The idea that atheism is _only_ a belief in no gods seems utterly incoherent, seeing as people are quite happy to call me an atheist despite the fact that I only lack belief IN gods. Only the broader definition of atheism gives us a complete spectrum of definition.

08-12-2002, 01:07 PM	#47
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	Kind Bud: Exactly! My eight great-grandparents filled settling missions for Brigham Young. Myself, I filled a proselytizing mission in Germany. But, I get the same wierd feeling whenever I speak to any of my siblings or cousins. One time in testimony meeting, an elderly geek stood up and said, "Even if it is proven beyond all doubt that "The Pearl of Great Price" is false, I have believed in it for sixty years and I guess I'll believe in it a little longer. I thought the old man said the most foolish thing I had ever heard. Little did I know and less did I research that "The Book of Abraham" had been, at that time, proven wrong beyond doubt--making me a bigger fool by far than he. Letting the herd instinct rule the intellect is a pathetic thing, especially if one is looking in the mirror.

08-12-2002, 01:08 PM	#48
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Dr S- thanks. In my case, I've taken a sip or two or three or four. As I understand it, and as you so very well put it, taking a sip, then explaining the taste, is the problem. Kinda like describing the color red to a blind person. Agree?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.