The thread of movie titles and absence of badges. In previous episodes, it was signs you're getting older, chiropractic vs. medicine, atheism vs. Mormonism and religion vs. science with no existentialism nor philosophy thrown in
-
Agnostic: there is no evidence for $deity, but they might exist. Best not to say anything to annoy them if they are real
Atheist: there is no evidence for $deity, so Occam's razor suggests there probably isn't one
-
Respect is earned, not given away. Why should they automatically get respect because they believe a certain way? That sounds irrational to me.
-
Agnostic: there is no evidence for $deity, but they might exist. Best not to say anything to annoy them if they are realAtheist: there is no evidence for $deity, so Occam's razor suggests there probably isn't one
given the atheists i have dealt with this is...nope. i can see where this discussion is going. i need to disengage while i still have my sanity.... sorry.
-
I see it that they don't lose the basic level of respect afforded to them as a fellow Homo Sapiens just because they believe something I think is stupid
-
Some atheists are dicks. The same goes for agnostics, theists, deists and pagans. Unfortunately, it's the most vocal from any group that get heard and that subgroup contains a lot of the dicks.
If you're not into arguing, no problem. See you in another thread.
-
Nobody said that was the case. However am not automatically respect the idea that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a horse, Jesus conquered death or that Xenu is some sort of galactic overlord. I am going to be decent and civil with you.
There is a difference.
-
Why?
Because that's not being a dick.
I don't go around preaching it, but I find it ridiculous and I have no problem saying it as equally as ridiculous
If someone isn't going around telling you that you must believe in what they do, you shouldn't tell them the opposite.
-
That in the past 185 years it has gone from an official membership of 6 on the day it was legally setup in the US, to over 15 million worldwide? That's unprecedented for the teachings of a charlatan.
Hitler pulled it off. And in only like 20 years. #Godwin'd
(For that matter, so did Lenin. #Commie-Godwin'd!)
-
Why should they automatically get respect because they believe a certain way? That sounds irrational to me.
That's not what I'm saying. I said you should respect that someone believes in something else, not them. If they're not being a dick, that's earning that respect enough.
-
I disagree.
-
I said you should respect that someone believes in something else
Even if what they believe is preposterous and demonstrably false?
-
Because that's not being a dick.
If someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old because they believe it, I am not going to respect that. I would then be well within my rights to wonder about their decision making process.
If someone isn't going around telling you that you must believe in what they do, you shouldn't tell them the opposite.
I never told anyone what they should believe at any point. In fact I am pretty sure I said someone "Everyone lives and dies with their own stupid ideas".
I compared two things which there is a lot of evidence that both their founders had less than stellar integrity and it blew up into a full on religious debate and I responded directly the statements that were made thereafter.
-
Yes. That's their choice, so as long as they're not trying to force it on me or anyone else, I don't see the problem.
-
no evidence of $DEITY and wonders why the hell this is still a discussion we are even having in 2015.
Epistemology is a harsh mistress.
-
I know that Mormonism has a history of homophobia, racism and other things I find repugnant as well promoting a set of irrational beliefs that are taught not be questioned.
This comes (again) from a position of misunderstanding:
- Homophobia. I'll refer you to this post: http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-monday-morning-blues-sister-act-2-back-in-the-habit-thread/1000/30884?u=abarker
- Racism. Sounds like a reference back to the fact that only white men were allowed to hold the priesthood in our church until the 1970s. Don't ask me why, that's just the way that God commanded it. The important thing is that when the change happened, it just did. Many men who knew they could not hold the priesthod due to their race joined the church before that time anyway. They were loved and accepted. If that's your basis for crying "racism", it's not the strongest case.
- Not questioning our beliefs. On the contrary, we teach our members to seek out truth wherever it is found, to question and learn. But, most of all, to find out for themselves the truth of anything. A person cannot maintain lifelong faith in a living prophet or the divinity of The Book of Mormon simply because their parents taught them that way. So we are taught to find out for ourselves. And finding something out for yourself always involves some questioning.
-
Even if what they believe is preposterous and demonstrably false?
as long as it is not causing anyone other than themselves harm..... why not?
-
as long as it is not causing anyone other than themselves harm..... why not?
Because it is willing and purposeful ignorance and that harms the human race as a whole?
-
Because it is willing and purposeful ignorance and that harms the human race as a whole?
well then that would be causing someone other than themselves harm, wouldn't it?
-
If someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old because they believe it, I am not going to respect that.
I didn't say you should respect what they say.
I never told anyone what they should believe at any point.
I was referring to the thing I quoted, which is exactly why I quoted it. Nothing else.
@lucas said:I don't go around preaching it, but I find it ridiculous and I have no problem saying it as equally as ridiculous as something else that is ridiculous.
This isn't going to do anything but go round in circles, so I'm inclined to agree with @abarker's earlier statement and leave it at that.
-
That is still homophobia. "Oh, they are welcome in the church as long as they don't engage in homosexual activities." The Church of LDS has no right to tell people what is moral and what is not. If they do said things, it does not hurt anyone.
-
Sounds like a reference back to the fact that only white men were allowed to hold the priesthood in our church until the 1970s. Don't ask me why, that's just the way that God commanded it.
Emphasis mine. If it was a commandment from god, how was that changed with a vote? Commandments don't really seem like the sort of thing that can be changed democratically. Was god there? May I see his ballot?
-
Christianity
Christianity is not a religion. It's a religious category. There are numerous Christian religions, but there is not currently a Christian religion.
No, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world if you look at percentage of change in the world. If you go to raw numbers, Christianity and Catholicism would be just by birth rate alone.
I guess I should have been more specific: by fastest growing religion, I meant fastest growth rate. Last time I checked, the Catholic church was nearly stagnant. Has that changed?
I don't believe that religion is necessary for these teachings.
I wasn't saying that religion is necessary to teach those things, but religion does a good job of teaching them.
but the vast majority of people see Mormonism as demonstrably false. It is one of the few religions to come about after written history was...a thing.
Yes I know, and most of the "demonstrably false" accusations that are thrown at me are lies. Everything else is basically just ignorance or misunderstanding.
-
well then that would be causing someone other than themselves harm, wouldn't it?
That would be how I define religion.
-
I didn't say you should respect what they say.
Which is exactly what I am saying. What is the argument?
-
That would be how I define religion.
you definition disagrees with mine then. and while i cannot agree with your definition i will respect it and would like to learn more about it so i might understand your point of view better.
-
From wikipedia:
The International Association of Scientologists (IAS), the official Church membership system since 1984, has never released figures.
-
I guess I should have been more specific: by fastest growing religion, I meant fastest growth rate. Last time I checked, the Catholic church was nearly stagnant. Has that changed?
Islam has you beat on growth rate. Try again.
Last time I checked, the Catholic church was nearly stagnant. Has that changed?
No, but if you look at raw numbers, year over year, there are more new Catholics than any other religion. This is primarily due to large numbers and high birth rates.
I wasn't saying that religion is necessary to teach those things, but religion does a good job of teaching them.
How? By promising heaven if you do and hell if you don't? That seems like a hollow set of values if you primarily do good only based on the promise of reward or the threat of punishment.
Everything else is basically just ignorance or misunderstanding.
So anyone who does not believe as you do is ignorant?
-
That is still homophobia. "Oh, they are welcome in the church as long as they don't engage in homosexual activities." The Church of LDS has no right to tell people what is moral and what is not. If they do said things, it does not hurt anyone.
The entire purpose of a religion is to provide a moral framework. So yes, they do have a right.
-
No, they do not. Who are they to play God and say what morals are ok?
-
So why was you so upset when I said when I questioned Joseph Smith's integrity.
-
I don't believe Homosexuality is immoral, I think you are immoral for saying it is immoral.
I don't see why it is immoral for consenting adults to enjoy each other's bodies.
-
you definition disagrees with mine then. and while i cannot agree with your definition i will respect it and would like to learn more about it so i might understand your point of view better.
I am a big proponent of "why". A person needs to know the why, so they can make informed decisions or change things for a positive. If you only teach someone "how" to do something, you create automatons. Would we agree on that?
From a scientific point of view (and many others), you have a scriptural "why" all wrapped up in a neat tiny package. When you know the why, you stop exploring. When you have a why that is thrust upon you, and you must believe it or suffer eternal hell, you will stop looking.
It is a classic "God of the margins" debate. Lots and lots of people, for religious reasons, wish to stop science because as understandings of science increase, the margins that god can exist in become smaller and smaller. This truly hurts society as a whole. When you have religious people who wish to put "intelligent design" in the textbooks of impressionable children, that harms society as a whole. It forces willful ignorance upon those who might grow up to make the next scientific discoveries. Where religion begins, learning ends, because you have a supernatural "why".
-
The entire purpose of a religion is to provide a moral framework. So yes, they do have a right.
No, that is pushing your concept of morality on others. I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. I feel it to be amoral. I feel that telling someone that their sexual orientation is immoral is immoral.
-
Racism. Sounds like a reference back to the fact that only white men were allowed to hold the priesthood in our church until the 1970s. Don't ask me why, that's just the way that God commanded it. The important thing is that when the change happened, it just did. Many men who knew they could not hold the priesthod due to their race joined the church before that time anyway. They were loved and accepted. If that's your basis for crying "racism", it's not the strongest case.
Not questioning our beliefs. On the contrary, we teach our members to seek out truth wherever it is found, to question and learn. But, most of all, to find out for themselves the truth of anything. A person cannot maintain lifelong faith in a living prophet or the divinity of The Book of Mormon simply because their parents taught them that way. So we are taught to find out for ourselves. And finding something out for yourself always involves some questioning.
Out of curiosity, what if said seeker concludes that Islam is the only one true religion, what would be the community's reaction?
As for item #2, I'll profess a not-so-curious stance and wonder how aforementioned deity decided, in its omnipotence and omniscience to change its mind...
-
As for item #2, I'll profess a not-so-curious stance and wonder how aforementioned deity decided, in its omnipotence and omniscience to change its mind...
They took a vote. God's laws are democratic.
When god's laws can be voted upon, you do not have a religion, you have a consensus.
Addendum: In other words, racism is no longer popular so we have to remove that part, it is still OK to hate gay people though so we will keep on with that for another half century or so.
-
Emphasis mine. If it was a commandment from god, how was that changed with a vote? Commandments don't really seem like the sort of thing that can be changed democratically. Was god there? May I see his ballot?
Wasn't really a vote. It was received as a revelation from God, and then accepted through a sustaining vote of the membership. Even if the membership had voted against the revelation, it would probably have become doctrine anyway.
Here's how sustaining votes work in our religion:
- The prophet appropriate level receives a revelation.
- The revelation is revealed to the members.
- The members are asked for a sustaining vote.
- The members are asked for a dissenting vote.
- If there are any dissenting votes, they are to meet privately with their local bishop or branch president (depending on the size of their congregation).
- If the concern is spiritual in nature, the concern is taken up the chain of authority where it is considered at each level. May be ignored, or lead to a restart of the process. If the concern is not a spiritual concern, the member continues to consult with their local leadership.
- The revelation becomes doctrine.
If you watch the movie Mobsters and Mormons, you can see this process in action on a small scale when a man is asked to be the bishop of local congregation. A similar process is used in such a situation, except in step 1, the revelation is given to the Stake President, in step 2 he presents the revelation to the affected ward, etc. In the movie, most of the congregation is opposed to the man being the bishop, but he becomes the bishop anyway, because none of those dissenting did so for spiritual reasons.
-
-
-
So anyone who does not believe as you do is ignorant?
I'm not saying that, just that everyone I've met who claims my church is "demonstrably" false doesn't really understand us. There are those who believe we are misled due to differences of faith, and that's fine. But there is nothing to prove that I am a member of a demonstrably false religion.
-
But what if the revelation is that they shouldn't take a vote on current and future revelations?
-
But what if the revelation is that they shouldn't take a vote on future revelations?
Well, that would require a...
I see what you did there...
-
And, how much motivation to a revelation is required?
-
No, they do not. Who are they to play God and say what morals are ok?
Why would a loving God leave us here without instructions on what is moral and what is not? We believe we have a living prophet who communicates directly with God and Christ. If someone who believes that has homosexual tendencies, then they have chosen to live within the moral framework provided by our church. If you don't believe that, then you have no obligation to live within the moral framework that we teach.
-
But there is nothing to prove that I am a member of a demonstrably false religion.
So, you believe that all Native Americans used to be white, and came from Jerusalem, until there was a big war and then god turned the aggressors red to mark them for life as punishment?
-
So why was you so upset when I said when I questioned Joseph Smith's integrity.
I already explained that.
-
And, how much motivation to a revelation is required?
Much more than is required to...say...eat a dish of fermented fish. Just a guess. ;)
-
As for item #2, I'll profess a not-so-curious stance and wonder how aforementioned deity decided, in its omnipotence and omniscience to change its mind...
How should I know? You expect me to understand the workings of an omnipotent, omniscient being's mind?
-
No you called me a massive dick and then said "my feelings were hurt".
-
-
Would we agree on that?
sure. i can agree with that.
you have a scriptural "why" all wrapped up in a neat tiny package.
me? not I. I'm withholding judgement on the whole matter until such time as more data is input into the system.
I believe that religion can be a useful way for societies to organize themselves to the greater good of the society, and i believe that the church (any church really) can be a force for good in the community and the world.
both of these beliefs are not in contradiction with my earlier statement that $diety lacks data to infer a conclusion on existence vs. non existence. in both of the examples i gave the actual existence of $diety is immaterial.
Lots and lots of people, for religious reasons, wish to stop science because as understandings of science increase, the margins that god can exist in become smaller and smaller
hmm... stopping scientific research is stupid. but so is saying that science marginalizes $diety.
we stand on a (semi-)?infinite plane of darkness. and science is the light we use to show us what is around us, but as we extend our knowledge, we also extend our knowledge of what we don't know. the further we look the more things we see that we don't yet know. We know they are there because they affect what we do know, but as we don't know them there's still a place for $diety to act. and our knowledge of what we are ignorant about will always grow faster than our knowledge of what we actually know.
Where religion begins, learning ends, because you have a supernatural "why".
only if we treat religion as a panacea, if we treat it as an investigation, then we learn much more, about ourselves, our religions (all of them) and our world.
what hurts us is those who are scared to learn more and ascribe that fear to their religion. those are the ones that want to teach intelligent design as the only truth, when in fact it has been official catholic doctrine for (IIRC) well over a hundred years that darwinism and evolution does not preclude intelligent design (because (IIRC) how can we know what method $diety used to inteligently design us. $diety could have used and influenced evolution to produce humanity. and it has never been official church doctrine that the 6 days of creation were literal 24 hour periods)
