Science disrespects religion

[_SPG]

Well that's arrogant, and more than a little offensive. It's frustrating to see someone couch their enthusiasm for a particular topic, not in terms of their own beliefs, but rather in terms of how much they feel others are dead wrong for not having identical belief and enthusiasm for that topic.

Going back to this comment, you said something about "because of my church days, " as though those days were behind you. But then you also said you were definitely TBM. How do those two comments fit together?

Arrogant and offensive? If you are just picking that up. . . . Good Lord, I must be slipping.

I don't think you are dead wrong, except maybe in your imagination. And please, my reasons for being here are strictly my own. I love to be challenged. TBM can mean True Blue Mormon, or True Believing Mormon. I'm sort of the second, but not in the traditional sense. I believe that Joseph Smith was onto something unusual and real. I believe in the benefit of religion, even though I cannot quite bring myself to join one again, but. . . . I do think about it often. Religion is very powerful. Right now, a religious war is warming up and I believe if you don't have a religion at some point in the future you might be assigned one. So, I'm a true believer in Mormonism, but have my reasons to be on the outside. However, as you might have noticed, I'm not your typical believer.

As I said, I'm not here to save anyone, just lend support to people doubting their faith. Many Agnostic or Atheist types have crawled out of the rabbit hole, so to speak. I just went deeper in. If you can believe in spirit and invisible things, then believe that there is something special to Mormonism.

The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is often applied to church members. There is that one person who can see through the BS and wonders why no else one can. So they leave the church, join another society and point the mocking figure at those that cannot see the naked Emperor for what he is. But, what they don't realize is that they just joined another Naked Emperor's cult. It's all BS. It's all illusion, that if you pull on the right string, it all unravels. That is sort of my message, figure out how to make it work where you are, if you like it.

So many Mormons feel obligated to dump the church when they see the flaws in it, but they may have liked it. They might have family that don't want to leave the church so they end up divorced because they have to be true to themselves. Then they go join the Baptists or something because that is somehow more true.

In the deeper end of things, (and I have gone to the deep end) I truly believe that Moroni gave Joseph Smith a book. Joseph Smith believed it, and so did those immediately around him. But, my view of things in the spirit world is much more "dramatic and varied" then what typical Mormons think. They think it is suits and tie, meetings with God, and missionary work. Moroni, in my opinion, was a rather dark and dangerous type, an old guardian of the land. Joseph Smith and his perhaps naïve innocence set something loose on the land. But, I feel supportive of it. Mormons are in general, awesome people. I feel protective of them. My avatar sort of depicts my self image on the matter. I don't claim to be a righteous Mormon, nor do I fear for my salvation. But I do love them, and want to see them prosper.

[_Themis]

You made the claim. People who make claims usually have some source they think supports it, so why wouldn't they provide it if they really believe the claim? Are you saying you just made up the idea because you liked it? That's fine, but at least we will all know your source.

If I make a claim something exists I am the one who needs to support it. Others cannot hope to go through everything in order to prove my claim wrong.

if I want to take the time I will prove you wrong. And basically that is why I'm here because I want to prove many of you wrong. If I don't believe something you say I will research it or accept it for the most part period or debate it. But I never assume that you're lying.

I don't think you are lying. Saying something that is not true is not lying unless you think what you said was not true. The one who makes the claim is the one responsible for backing it up. You can ask me to back up any claim I make. If I make the claim that one of the LDS church leaders admitted Joseph Smith was a fraud are you really going to start researching all documents related to the LDS church to prove my claim is wrong? How long would that take? The person making the claim is the one saying they know, so they are the one who has to back it up. It's only those who make crap up who don't want to have to back what they claim, so they try and shift responsibility for their claims.

[_Lemmie]

Well that's arrogant, and more than a little offensive. It's frustrating to see someone couch their enthusiasm for a particular topic, not in terms of their own beliefs, but rather in terms of how much they feel others are dead wrong for not having identical belief and enthusiasm for that topic.

Arrogant and offensive? If you are just picking that up. . . . Good Lord, I must be slipping.

Did you read what I said about couching your views in terms of how wrong others are? Consider it feedback, then, because yes, your comment below came off as arrogant and offensive:

I think that is why I am so attracted to atheists and agnostics, they quit asking, believing they have found the right answer. It makes me crazy thinking that some soul has decided that they understand God and are done asking questions. It's like watching some kid drown and have him decide breathing wasn't important.

it's a little worrisome that you find yourself "attracted" to atheists and agnostics for that reason. There are other verbs that fit better.

[_SPG]

I don't think you are lying. Saying something that is not true is not lying unless you think what you said was not true. The one who makes the claim is the one responsible for backing it up. You can ask me to back up any claim I make. If I make the claim that one of the LDS church leaders admitted Joseph Smith was a fraud are you really going to start researching all documents related to the LDS church to prove my claim is wrong? How long would that take? The person making the claim is the one saying they know, so they are the one who has to back it up. It's only those who make crap up who don't want to have to back what they claim, so they try and shift responsibility for their claims.

To be honest, I don't keep track of all the sources. I read things that actually predate the internet.

From my own experience, if someone said something that interested me, good or bad, I looked it up.

As part of my belief system, our belief system is our world. No one is really happy to allow someone to mess with that. I had heard that Joseph Smith was a fraud upwards of a 1000 time before I had the courage to look into myself. I didn't want to believe it. And there was nothing anybody said that was going to convince me.

At some point, I had the courage to look into it. But, I didn't just follow someone's link to a church authority making a statement. And, I held to what I wanted, even while I investigated Joseph Smith. In other words, whether Jesus or Joseph were frauds, the creations named after them were precious to me.

Whether Joseph Smith was a fraud, his creation filled a need for some people and I am one of those people. Main stream Christianity had a choke hold on our spiritual lives. When Mormons dared to be different, the backlash was violent. They were run out of the country.

I do make up crap, because a lot of the stuff I see, not many others see it. I don't lie, but trust me, I've written things here that I've never heard or read anywhere else. But, usually I admit that. If I cannot take credit for a thought, I usually give a loose reference to where it came, but I'm sharing a thought, not quoting an authority. My views on Joseph Smith are pretty unique, even though I did actually read testimony of his close friends, both Mormon and non-Mormon. Joseph Smith wasn't a fraud, it wasn't in his nature. He might have been a little crazy and/or eccentric, but he believed in what he was doing. And that how that story got rephrased and passed down through history was twisted and whitewashed from what really happened. But that wasn't him being a fraud. That was his friends whitewashing (especially BY) events. I'm still not entirely convinced that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy, not that I have a problem with it. But most of the convincing evidence suggests that it was BY. Like most of Joseph Smith wives (witnesses of Joseph Smith' polygamy) somehow are all BY wives, and dozens of other questionable things. (again, not doing sources.)

But, I understand that most people are just trying to protect their identity. In some cases, that means protecting Mormonism. In some cases, that means exposing what they consider lies. I'm not entirely sure where I am coming from. It's a generalized feeling that I support what Moroni was trying to imply though the book, (no good sources.)

But that is my point in this whole thread. Why must we defend what we believe? Belief has an effect that is generally desired by our inner needs. Like believing we are going to heaven when we die. It makes us feel better. Why do we need to defend and justify that? Like, we want to think our spouse is being loyal to us, but obviously a lot of people are wrong. Religion isn't the same sort of science as academic schools teach. Religion is the science of living, more than biological life. I mean, religion is more about how to live than it is about biological facts. One thing I will state that I hate. There was a video going around where a woman, that looked mostly man, was going on about racism is unjustified, and that we have been taught wrong all of these years.

Identity is the most important thing to our consciousness. Identity is more important than life, which why people commit suicide when something shifts their identity too much, like an innocent girl getting raped, or rich man loses his money. Biology doesn't explain everything about people, in fact, it explains very little. We fight for identity, we kill for identity, and it seems to me that the atheistic community is really trying to strip that from us things that make us special and unique, (unless you are gay, then it's ok to be special and unique.) They want to make us all the same, and we don't want that. Life doesn't want that. The need to be special, to be at least mildly unique, is an instinctual need of human consciousness. Science wants to point out that everyone bleeds red. That is true, but spiritually, there is massive differences in people.

[_Maksutov]

I don't know, SPG. I read walls of your text and keep coming away with the impression that it's one big long whine about the fact that nobody respects your beliefs. But then you do a very inadequate job of explaining and defending said beliefs, with the natural result, then go into another loop of whining and complaining about "can't get no respect." You need to back up your statements with more than your memory and additional vagaries and digressions. People expect something concise and clear to read. That is how you get through all of the other noise.

There have been recommendations made to you about how to address your lack of scientific knowledge. This is a problem we all have, but you have to get past your erroneous generalizations and caricatures in order to grasp many of the issues that have been addressed by Lemmie and DrW and others.

[_SPG]

I don't know, SPG. I read walls of your text and keep coming away with the impression that it's one big long whine about the fact that nobody respects your beliefs. But then you do a very inadequate job of explaining and defending said beliefs, with the natural result, then go into another loop of whining and complaining about "can't get no respect." You need to back up your statements with more than your memory and additional vagaries and digressions. People expect something concise and clear to read. That is how you get through all of the other noise.

There have been recommendations made to you about how to address your lack of scientific knowledge. This is a problem we all have, but you have to get past your erroneous generalizations and caricatures in order to grasp many of the issues that have been addressed by Lemmie and DrW and others.

Well, I guess my message is coming through strong. Every forum is different. On some forums, people might say, "Go read the Bible if you want the truth." That I come across as unread is perhaps a weakness on my part, not to say that I have read as much DrW or Lemmie, as I don't know them. I think I've read different things to be share. That I'm unheard isn't unusual for me, I'm used to it. Whiner? That one is new.

Well, I'm done here.

[_Lemmie]

That I'm unheard isn't unusual for me, I'm used to it.

Do you define "unheard" as "heard but disagreed with"? Plenty of people "heard" you and addressed your points. You must be getting thread re-write advice from a gymnast.

[_Gadianton]

But, I understand that most people are just trying to protect their identity.

In a rant against atheism you appeal to the Freudian idea of people expending great energy to protect self-esteem. in order to make room for religious practice, which the greater portion of humanity depends on to feel special, we need to consider Freud's words. It's not a bad suggestion. Atheists are all over the map in zeal to temper religion and in my opinion some if it is overboard and unrealistic.

However, it's a good thing we have the secular psychological sciences that explain the deeply-grained human needs you speak of. Had you been enlightened by Christianity, you'd know that people simply need to leave their false gods and repent, lest they suffer in hell forever.

[_Dr. Shades]

For me personally, I am a believer, agnostic, and atheist.

And for me personally, I am infertile, childless, and a parent.

[_Philo Sofee]

SPG
I'm just a presence, promoting the love of faith.

And we are presences promoting the love of actual truth through evidence. No wonder you fail to convince much.