…yet he keeps bringing up how geological evidence disproves the entire Bible.
If you want to make the jump from "If part of the Bible is an artistic poem, it does call the veracity of the rest of the book into question." to "…geological evidence disproves the entire Bible." knock yourself out. However, I would ask you to extend the same courtesy you asked of me to not to put words into my mouth.
No. Geological evidence strongly points to the "fact" that the first chapter of the first book of the entire Bible isn't an accurate account of the literal way the earth and its inhabitants were created.
Yet, the Book of Mormon is dismissed for similar "facts".
You say the Book of Mormon is not the same thing or even close to the Bible. I bet Mormons could give you an answer for every 'error' and 'inconsistency' in the Book of Mormon. I dare say, with just as much conviction as you give with your own answers to problems I have with the Bible. Does that not give you the least pause?
I guess that they are to me as we are to atheists.Bingo.
Of course they are also to atheists what you are to atheists.
|
You've been holding onto this for a while...
However, I would ask you to extend the same courtesy you asked of me to not to put words into my mouth.
So why do you keep bring up Genesis 1? (And keep bringing it up and keep bringing it up ...) You are really hung up on that one part of the Bible. I've got lots of issues with the Bible that are a lot more difficult to counter than something that is pretty clearly a praise to God -- even though many Christians themselves can't seem to figure that out.
Yet, the Book of Mormon is dismissed for similar "facts".
You say the Book of Mormon is not the same thing or even close to the Bible. I bet Mormons could give you an answer for every 'error' and 'inconsistency' in the Book of Mormon. I dare say, with just as much conviction as you give with your own answers to problems I have with the Bible. Does that not give you the least pause?
No, they are not even close to the same thing. Take out any and all references to God or miracles in general. The Bible at least has names of places, units of measurements, units of money, societal aspects that are windows into history among other things. Some of the events may have been exagerated for purposes of storytelling or propaganda as well as other historical inaccuracies (they didn't exactly have the internet, Word processors, or back-up systems in place) but at least a lot (most? all?) the events listed in the Bible (non-religious) could have happened. Also keep in mind that much of the Old Testament details time that is MUCH older than the Book of Mormon is supposed to be. Compare that to the Book of Mormon. None of the places exist. None of the events happened. The way people lived is incorrect. This isn't an exageration. And we're just talking about the non-fantastical stuff.
Also, I've seen some of the "apologetics" for the Book of Mormon. (Of course their "base-line" is the Bible which from your point of view is kind of ironic.) And most of the stuff I've seen has some pretty big logic flaws with it. (Kind of similar to the "Answers in Genesis" site.) But a lot of that you can compare to Christians -- so I'm not sure how useful that is. At the same time, my experience with Mormons is much different with regard to "conviction". Most Mormons that I've known seem to have huge amounts of faith and very little conviction. It's really kind of odd to me. They have told me that they know that Joseph Smith prophesied that there were six-foot-quacker people living on the moon and know that he was wrong and would still follow him. They seem far more willing to admit that the whole thing is most likely wrong, but that it's still right for them. It's something that I really don't fully understand. I don't know if it's "better" or "worse". But it is at least different.
To my mind, having more realistic mundane stuff doesn't make the non-mundane stuff any more reliable; they're two separate issues. But then again, I'm not the one claiming that pi is exactly 3.00 -- and neither are you, Moff. There are some people who do just that, however, and they're the ones I take exception to.
|
|
To my mind, having more realistic mundane stuff doesn't make the non-mundane stuff any more reliable; they're two separate issues.
I'm not saying that they aren't separate issues (or at least I'm trying not to). I'm not trying to imply that "because the Bible is more historically accurate it must be true". I'm being told that the Book of Mormon is essentially the same as the Bible. It's not. Starting with how it came to be all the way to historical accuracies. To Atheists, they may both just be books with some fun/nice stories. But they are still different -- very different.
I had more but it wasn't terribly "civil".
With regard to what I said above, I'm trying to strictly keep it to a comparison of the two books in showing that they are not the same thing -- or even close. If you want to believe the Book of Mormon (or the Bible), fine. But they are not basically the same thing. There are more documents out there that I feel are more like the Bible than the Book of Mormon -- the Koran, the Hindu book, etc.
The Book of Mormon is in a class all its own. (For better or worse.)
|
|
Before Paul comes on and asks if I'm ok...
I think that Mormons get me more than anyone else because I just don't get it. I know that there are a lot of Christians who (for better or worse) will fight to their dying breath that the earth and all its inhabitants were created in seven days. And while I don't agree with that, I at least understand that mentality. I also understand the idea of picking and choosing what aspects you want to believe. Again, I disagree with that but I understand it. What I don't understand is -- to know and believe that something is false and true at the same time. And that's what I've come across with many Mormons.
I'm not saying that they aren't separate issues (or at least I'm trying not to). I'm not trying to imply that "because the Bible is more historically accurate it must be true".
Understood -- didn't mean to imply any misrepresentation. When I say that you are NOT one of the people claiming that pi = 3.0, that's a complement. What I was trying to say is that some people (and you are not one of them!) conflate historicity with accuracy across the board... because, for whatever reason, they feel that if anything isn't accurate, the whole thing must be wrong (why anyone would think that is beyond me, but hey, I'm not part of that whole deal). Those people tend to point out inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon as "proof" that the whole religion is wrong -- and at that same time deny that the Bible contains any inaccuracies at all (thus the bizarre claims that pi = 3.0, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc.).
In other words, contrasting the Book of Mormon with the Bible (or rather, people's reactions to them) actually provides some insight into the fundamentalist mind-set -- which you, refreshingly, don't share.
EDIT: Ninja'd! You just hit part of my point yourself, Moff. Between you and Paul Watson, I'm getting to be downright extraneous!
|
Before Paul comes on and asks if I'm ok...
I think that Mormons get me more than anyone else because I just don't get it. I know that there are a lot of Christians who (for better or worse) will fight to their dying breath that the earth and all its inhabitants were created in seven days. And while I don't agree with that, I at least understand that mentality. I also understand the idea of picking and choosing what aspects you want to believe. Again, I disagree with that but I understand it. What I don't understand is -- to know and believe that something is false and true at the same time. And that's what I've come across with many Mormons.
It was just one time!!! Fine, I won't ask if you're ok again. If that's the way you're going to be.
Kirth,
Will you stop figuring out the plans to replace you Moff and I have drawn up so early? It's just rude to spoil megalomanical schemes like that.
What I don't understand is -- to know and believe that something is false and true at the same time. And that's what I've come across with many Mormons.
As far as I understand, they are going off of faith. Which by definition needs not logic or reason (being about belief that is not based on proof).
Some people, when faced with a paradox or inconsistency, think of it as an opportunity to strengthen their faith. After all, the less reason to believe something (like that there is tons of evidence against it) then the more faith it shows that they still accept it as true.Then again this applies to most, if not all, religions.
So why do you keep bring up Genesis 1?
I believe it has been brought up and brought up and brought up before I weigh in with my own uneducated opinion. I am not hung up on Genesis. It does provide a good beginning point though, since, you know, it is the beginning.
I admit to bringing it up regarding Mormons because geology and archaeology are often dismissed by Christians in my experience, but seemed to be used here to dismiss Mormons. I admit not all Christians dismiss them and I further admit that I have never heard you dismiss them.
I'm not trying to imply that "because the Bible is more historically accurate it must be true".
I am sorry, Moff, but that sounds exactly what you are trying to imply. I believe we can both agree that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not literally, word for word, the same thing. My assertion is that a Fantasy book and an Historical Fiction book are both fiction. I am not even sure I would classify the Bible as an Historical Fiction.
So when you suggest the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale made up by men, it seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Why is your made up fairy tale any more valid than someone else's?
|
|
I'm not trying to imply that "because the Bible is more historically accurate it must be true".
I am sorry, Moff, but that sounds exactly what you are trying to imply.
I understand what you are saying. However, at best I'm trying to say that the Bible is at least a little more reasonable. I'm also saying that it's not obviously false.
So when you suggest the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale made up by men, it seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Why is your made up fairy tale any more valid than someone else's?
I'm not saying that it is. With specific regard to the Book of Mormon, I feel that it is more valid (for me) because the Bible wasn't written by only one crackpot. It was written by many crackpots. I say that a little tongue-in-cheek, but I'm also serious. The Bible was written with many different authors who were all trying to get the same general point across and it was clearly written at different times and time periods and so on. It was also assembled by a number of people on a number of different committees. It is known what languages it was originally written in and can trace this back quite a bit. The Book of Mormon was written by one person. That alone sends up serious "red flags" for me. "Control" was brought up quite a while ago. When one person does all the decision making, it screams of a control issue to me.
I can understand why a number of other "fairy tales" are just as "valid" as my "fairy tale". I don't feel that the Book of Mormon is among them.
|
|
Then again this applies to most, if not all, religions.
Not just religion. Look at Arizona. ;-)
Seriously though, I find this interesting. Many people seem to have a deep-rooted need to believe something. And sometimes the more bizarre, the more believable? Anyone come to any conclusions as to why that might be?
I could offer a few theories, but I fear I have already reached maximum annoyance levels.
Seriously though, I find this interesting. Many people seem to have a deep-rooted need to believe something. And sometimes the more bizarre, the more believable? Anyone come to any conclusions as to why that might be?
If faith is good, then one wants more of it. Most modern religions teach that faith is very, very good indeed. It's like happiness, wealth, pleasure, success, really good sex, a nubile Elijah Wood willing to do anything for-
Erm, sorry, what was I saying? :)
What better way to improve oneself then, than to believe in some really crazy stuff? The harder it is to believe, the more the senses rebel, the more conviction it takes to believe. It becomes a kind of mental asceticism. Even sophisticated apologists like William Lane Craig will do this when they declare that even in the presence of absolutely convincing and irrefutable proof that their religion was false, they would still believe. He calls it something to the effect of the self-validating testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Of course there's also the fact that doubt can be an unsettling, unpleasant, and unsatisfying condition. It can be tiring to look for evidence, not practically possible, beyond one's intellectual abilities, beyond one's education, so the path of least resistance has a certain appeal. Once one goes down that road, with all its psychological candy, and decided one is righteous to do so, why not go for the gold?
The only brakes on the latter that seems to have much effect is social convention. When you get to the point where something will subject you to frequent ridicule, or discrimination, physical pain, at the hands of the larger society, it has a moderating effect. There's pressure going the other way now. That's one of the reasons I criticize religion and support others who do so, provided they're non-violent and so forth. I'm trying to move the high-faith speed limit downwards, if you will. I'd really like to see the consensus move teaching kids that there are all kinds of make-believe problems with evolution into the same level of crazy as teaching them the Earth is flat, for example.
Of course some people will be attracted because of the social censure and even thrive on it, especially if it's rather mild, but most people are mostly conventional most of the time. This is one of the big reasons for the rise of the religious right. They saw the world was going against them and mobilized to take back absolute power. That they never actually had it is the kind of detail they don't fret much.
That might make it sound like these movements always fail, but they do not. I wish they did. Race relations in the US got hit with one such movement after the Civil War and steadily worsened until about the 1940s. Germany had a somewhat successful, at least socially and for the time, gay rights movement in the Twenties. Instead of the closet they put us into the ovens. Social tolerance for homosexuality in the US peaked about the same time and then plunged in the Depression, before crawling back up a few decades later. Islam used to be the most cosmopolitan, learned, and tolerant of the desert religions.
I am not convinced you can chalk it up to intellectual laziness. Surely there are plenty of examples of the devout questioning their beliefs. At one time, I did believe all believers simply to did not dig deep enough to see what I believed to be the obvious flaws in faith.
I have personally know too many people, that I believe to be quite intelligent¹, who believe. This does assume that demonstrated intelligence at least implies lack of intellectual laziness. Of the examples in my own life that I can think of, I can not speak for exactly how questioning they are. However, when I have presented my own questions, they appeared to have given it some thought themselves. This thread itself, I believe, should be an example.
I was thinking about this last night, and I wonder if it is something deeper. Our formative years are heavily influenced by our parents. Do we, therefore, seek out a substitute parental figure later in life when we begin to wonder about the world around us and how we fit into it. And by this, I do not only mean we look for a 'god' to be Daddy, it could be something more mundane as a mentor which often comes in the guise of a religious person. We naturally seek answers and here is someone who has those answers.
I do not have a more complete theory at this point. I offer up these random musings of a llama for your own criticism.
¹And maybe this is an error in my perception, but I shall continue to operate under this assessment until evidence can be presented to the contrary.
|
I am not convinced you can chalk it up to intellectual laziness. Surely there are plenty of examples of the devout questioning their beliefs. At one time, I did believe all believers simply to did not dig deep enough to see what I believed to be the obvious flaws in faith.
I have personally know too many people, that I believe to be quite intelligent¹, who believe. This does assume that demonstrated intelligence at least implies lack of intellectual laziness. Of the examples in my own life that I can think of, I can not speak for exactly how questioning they are. However, when I have presented my own questions, they appeared to have given it some thought themselves. This thread itself, I believe, should be an example.
I was thinking about this last night, and I wonder if it is something deeper. Our formative years are heavily influenced by our parents. Do we, therefore, seek out a substitute parental figure later in life when we begin to wonder about the world around us and how we fit into it. And by this, I do not only mean we look for a 'god' to be Daddy, it could be something more mundane as a mentor which often comes in the guise of a religious person. We naturally seek answers and here is someone who has those answers.
I do not have a more complete theory at this point. I offer up these random musings of a llama for your own criticism.
¹And maybe this is an error in my perception, but I shall continue to operate under this assessment until evidence can be presented to the contrary.
I have had the exact opposite thoughts. I have known a few people who are atheist simply because they did not care to dig deeper, or to even give it a second thought. It wasn't until reading some non fiction by Douglas Adams, that it even dawned on me that some people may in fact have a good reason to think the way they do. Then I also ran into those with whom elements of some believers have in fact driven them away from well church belief and in many cases any sort of trust.
That is interesting. I do not think I have ever met an atheist that was not religious first. It seems to me they would have had to put some thought into changing their beliefs.
It is beginning to seem to me that CJ and I are much more alike than I am sure either of us would be comfortable admitting. Our differences seem little more than opposite experiences which, through the same reasoning, caused us to end up on opposite ends of the spectrum.
|
Man arrested for calling homosexuality a sin in public .
I'm kinda divided on this one. First if it happened in a church I would have a major problem with the outcome, but it happened in a public street where the guy was preaching. Now we got to understand Britain has Hate Speech Laws, as do many european countries, and Canada. So it doesn't have a problem with public displays of religion as long as you don't attack a group of people in your preaching I.E. other religions, sexualities, racial groups, etc. So All I have to say is ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, he has full right to believe what he wants and say what he wants in a church (he's offered such protections under the law) but on a street corner preaching against homosexuality I'd say no. Lets face it the same thing would have happened if he did it here in Canada. An officer would have approached and warned him and if he continued he would be arrested.
|
|
That is interesting. I do not think I have ever met an atheist that was not religious first. It seems to me they would have had to put some thought into changing their beliefs.
It is beginning to seem to me that CJ and I are much more alike than I am sure either of us would be comfortable admitting. Our differences seem little more than opposite experiences which, through the same reasoning, caused us to end up on opposite ends of the spectrum.
I have met several. Including one who feels that all the world is stupid and dislikes people in general because we all believe this silly stuff.
Sad thing is when I start looking at things like the Sex abuse crisis and some evangelical trying to 'Turn' aids; well I can see where he is coming from even though I still think these are the extremes and most believers and even questioners fall somewhere in the middle.
Man arrested for calling homosexuality a sin in public .
First point, when you are told by an officer of the law that you are breaking it and then you continue to break it, guess what.
Second point, I see this as a freedom of speech thing. I realize this is the UK and I know nothing about their laws. He is not screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Is distributing ignorance a threat to the public? What if he were saying that those of African descent were lesser beings because god had obviously 'marked' them?
I strongly disagree with him, but should he not have a right to say what he wants?
|
|
Umm I'm afraid not. Britain has hate speech laws. To summarize Hate Speech Laws. You cannot publicly denounce or harrass in blatant speech other ethnicities, sexualities, and religions. You cannot display public signage above including hateful symbols (such as a swastika). You cannot publicly espouse genocide in speech or signage or literature. To violate said laws can result in a fine or a term of imprisonment up to 5 years depending on the severity of the offence. So no in Britain, Canada, and many European countries you can't do what he did.
|
Man arrested for calling homosexuality a sin in public .First point, when you are told by an officer of the law that you are breaking it and then you continue to break it, guess what.
Second point, I see this as a freedom of speech thing. I realize this is the UK and I know nothing about their laws. He is not screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Is distributing ignorance a threat to the public? What if he were saying that those of African descent were lesser beings because god had obviously 'marked' them?
I strongly disagree with him, but should he not have a right to say what he wants?
There is a cultural element at play here. I think most in the US would find that law in question abhorrent because we have a deeply ingrained belief in the principle of free speech. Even as a gay man in the US, I would object to someone being arrested in such a circumstance because I support the right for people to say whatever they want, no matter how disagreeable it is.
I think that's a cultural thing, though, and a lot of people raised in European cultures don't see things in quite the same way. Many European countries have laws limiting certain types of public speech (such as hate speech in the UK, or denying the Holocaust in Germany) that are unthinkable from a US perspective, but I think it's a matter of cultural differences at work.
I strongly dislike being preached at. :P
Edit: Context... I am reading a book called Godless by Dan Barker. I cannot find myself wanting to finish the book because I'm constantly being preached at... in this case by a strong atheist.
I've been picking it up and putting it back down for weeks now. :\
I'm still needing to pick that up and put it on my babelistic pile of books needing to be read...
|
|
Umm... has anyone else seen this website . I'm pretty sure it's a poe. But I'd hate to think someone in North America really believes this crap.
|
|
Umm... has anyone else seen this website . I'm pretty sure it's a poe. But I'd hate to think someone in North America really believes this crap.
The irony is, that link goes back to the OTD section! LOL.
Edit: Third time is the charm, go Explorer... the little browser that could.
|
|
National Day of Prayer goes on despite ruling
It still has appeals left. So should we now ban say Thanksgiving?
National Day of Prayer goes on despite rulingIt still has appeals left. So should we now ban say Thanksgiving?
No, 'cause I give thanks every year we have not yet become a theocracy. ;)
|
|
No, 'cause I give thanks every year we have not yet become a theocracy. ;)National Day of Prayer goes on despite rulingIt still has appeals left. So should we now ban say Thanksgiving?
Thank the good lord for small favors. Did you ever watch the movie Confederate States of America?
National Day of Prayer is a huge kick in the teeth to me.
Government: "Hey, you! Start praying!"
Me: "Sorry, that's against my religion."
Government: "Then your religion is WRONG! If you don't believe in praying to God, get out!"
Me: "What happened to 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?" I want to freely exercise my religion, and not have you establishing yours over me."
Government: "The Constitution is for losers! Everybody knows this is supposed to be a Christian country! Ten Commandments trump that sissy Bill of Rights! So get with the program, boy!"
Me: "God help us all, then."
|
|
National Day of Prayer is a huge kick in the teeth to me.
Government: "Hey, you! Start praying!"
Me: "Sorry, that's against my religion."
Government: "Then your religion is WRONG! If you don't believe in praying to God, get out!"
Me: "What happened to 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?" I want to freely exercise my religion, and not have you establishing yours over me."
Government: "The Constitution is for losers! Everybody knows this is supposed to be a Christian country! Ten Commandments trump that sissy Bill of Rights! So get with the program, boy!"
Me: "God help us all, then."
That's kind of an extreme response do you not think?
That's kind of an extreme response do you not think?
I'd say it's so mild and polite it barely qualifies as criticism, but Kirth's gentle like that.
I am not convinced you can chalk it up to intellectual laziness. Surely there are plenty of examples of the devout questioning their beliefs. At one time, I did believe all believers simply to did not dig deep enough to see what I believed to be the obvious flaws in faith.
I might be inclined to agree, but I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammed. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.
Maybe I should say extreme for Kirth.
He is kind of plain, isn't he? We have to get him on a teen drama and make him wear leather. The rest will take care of itself. Maybe he'll turn into a vampire! :)
Especially if he starts sparkling.
All vampires sparkle in the sunlight. Briefly.
that was funny. about time.:P
All vampires sparkle in the sunlight. Briefly.
I am not a monkey who dances for your amusement. I am an ape that dances for my amusement. :)
That's kind of an extreme response do you not think?
All joking (and imagined redneck voice for Congress aside), no, I don't think it is. Not only is it not the government's function to tell me when to pray, or to whom -- but as a whole (and with some notable exceptions who were outvoted) the Framers specifically listed that as one of the things the Federal government is NOT allowed to do. And they wrote voluminous correspondence explaining their reasoning. Yet comes the 1950s, all of that is tossed into the dustbin under the cloak of combatting the "Red Menace."
Nor are non-Christians the only ones who should maybe wonder about this. Do you, CJ, as a Christian, really want the Federal government telling you how to go about practicing your religion, or setting timetables for it? Are you really sure that they know better than you do, better than your Church does, and better than God? Were I a Christian, I'd be a lot MORE angry about having a national Day of Prayer prescribed by the Feds. (P.S. When Congress started sticking "In God We Trust" on the currency*, by far the most vocal opposition were Christian groups, who had a mass of scriptural evidence supporting their position that God and the monentary system don't mix, and shouldn't, and who felt that it was an insult to God to, in effect, ask Him to buoy up the value of the currency.)
I share the view of James Madison, who wrote that religion and government are both best when mixed least.
*
<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammed. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.
Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
|
|
<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
I can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.
|
|
That's kind of an extreme response do you not think?All joking (and imagined redneck voice for Congress aside), no, I don't think it is. Not only is it not the government's function to tell me when to pray, or to whom -- but as a whole (and with some notable exceptions who were outvoted) the Framers specifically listed that as one of the things the Federal government is NOT allowed to do. And they wrote voluminous correspondence explaining their reasoning. Yet comes the 1950s, all of that is tossed into the dustbin under the cloak of combatting the "Red Menace."
Nor are non-Christians the only ones who should maybe wonder about this. Do you, CJ, as a Christian, really want the Federal government telling you how to go about practicing your religion, or setting timetables for it? Are you really sure that they know better than you do, better than your Church does, and better than God? Were I a Christian, I'd be a lot MORE angry about having a national Day of Prayer prescribed by the Feds. (P.S. When Congress started sticking "In God We Trust" on the currency*, by far the most vocal opposition were Christian groups, who had a mass of scriptural evidence supporting their position that God and the monentary system don't mix, and shouldn't, and who felt that it was an insult to God to, in effect, ask Him to buoy up the value of the currency.)
I share the view of James Madison, who wrote that religion and government are both best when mixed least.
*
Yes and no. Don't have enough time to go into it at work, will try to compose a response later.
|
|
I can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
That's funny. If I weren't an agnostic/atheist that I'd probably be Catholic. :D