3 ms·

> Religion is nothing but falsehood. That's an inaccurate conclusion. Religions include all sorts of truth. Something being part of a religon is _not_ enough

> Religion is nothing but falsehood. That's an inaccurate conclusion. Religions include all sorts of truth. Something being part of a religon is _not_ enough reason to label it as false. Given that there are a wide variety of religions and belief systems, I'm surprised that you outright decry them as all false. I'd say it's quite likely that some religion approaches "truth". I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation[0]. I also happen to belief it has a very coherent theology - I'd say similar to math. I'd say the major thing that sets many religions apart from science is that results don't generalize - knowledge is personal. So to sum up: religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. [0] https://www.lds.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?id=p26-p40&lang=eng#p26 https://www.lds.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?id=p26-p40...

michaelmrose 8y ago
I don't want to personally attack you for how you believe. I believe you ought have a right to come to your own personal conclusions. That said the scripture you linked was started by a literal convicted con man who received revelation by looking at golden tablets that never existed in his hat and translating the truths found therein. He also famously found part of the religious text in Egyptian hieroglyphics that he "translated" into English that turns out not to match the actual text that we can now read. Because of the faiths relatively more recent vintage there is a mountain of non subjective evidence that the faith is literally built on a pile of lies by a bad person. I in particular find that your comparison to math completely baffling. Just because I disagree emphatically with your beliefs and your founder this doesn't mean that you personally are a bad person but I believe your belief system is a huge net negative for the world and allowing you to spread it here unopposed would be net negative for the world. I don't want to shut you up but I really want other people to know the truth of what you are trying to push. If you want a multi page analysis of everything wrong with the latter day saints we can go there.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
  If evolution is concerned by culture, which it is, there must be metric of ‘survival of the fittest religion’... Religion has evolved, and servived, and not necessarily because it is weak. There is plenty room for bias here, and I am not a religious person myself, but I most fear the secular religious who speak like you, like an all-knowing, all-seeing eye. There is no all-seeing-eye. Dimensipns of time, space, and perspective inherently limit any one person from understanding the ways of our world. It is that gapt that myth and religion fills. By way of evolved cultural formations, religion is an instinct among men. All societies will have a religion, whether they adhere to the traditions or not.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    >I most fear the secular religious who speak like you, like an all-knowing, all-seeing eye. I'm an atheist no idea where you got the above. The fact that religion survived says little about its fitness going forward.
- swsieber 8y ago
  I'd say my religion is a net benefit, by the type of people it teaches its members to be. I know I've seen great blessing in my life, and am a better person because because of what I've learned trying to live my religion. I have various answers to the points you brought up. They probably aren't satisfactory to you. You probably have more points, and I won't have answers to some of them. And that's OK by me. And have mistakes been made? Most definitely. That doesn't take away from the truths I've learned (you might disagree, and that's understandable). I compare it to math because there are principles taught in the church, and teachings about how the plan of salvation works, and certain principles. And you can approach them in various ways and they fit together nicely. Like being able to complete a mathematical proof in different ways. It's the consistency that drives the comparison. And although I do have unanswered questions, they gradually get answered over time (we're talking years here), and I'll probably go to my grave with unanswered questions. I'm OK with that. ----------------------- To address your criticisms. Which conviction are you talking about - is it the one where the "victim" testified that Joseph Smith (the founder) was innocent?[0] He was in the courts a lot of times (as you know), leading to his eventual death. That's the first court case that comes to mind when you say convicted felon. I'm also not surprised that the text didn't match. You know about the portion of Isaiah quoted in 2 Nephi that doesn't match the Joseph Smith translation of same part of the Bible, right? I don't consider that a mark against him as a fraud, given the nature of his transactions (e.g. the process with the stones, of which there is copious documentation). (Edited for clarity:) Your statement about the gold plates could be read that there was proof he never had the gold plates (tablets). For the record, he was consistent about his statement about their existence (sorry for the awkward phrasing - he didn't have them all the time, and I'm trying to not be ambiguous...). Interestingly enough, the people he showed them (the plates) to never recanted their testimony about said plates, even though they left the church. You must know the standards the restored church encourages, so believing that it's a net negative signals to me that you might think it's because of moral issues the church takes a stance on, like pornography, drugs, sex outside of marriage, the divinity of gender and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of god? I'm guessing? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could call the church a net negative... Edit: I do encourage perusing the church's official history stuff[1]. I say this not to convince you that I'm right, but because they've put up a lot of stuff in recent years; you might be pleasantly surprised at the number of contentious history items that had formerly been basically ignored or undocumented that are now up there. [0] https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-trial?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-... [1] https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng
rdm_blackhole 8y ago
As somebody else said, I have nothing against you personally but I believe that the narrative that you are pushing is false so I have to rebut it. > Religions include all sorts of truth. How so? By definition, there is only one truth. Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. There is no room for interpretation in truth. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: If what you were trying to say was: there are some things in religion that cannot yet be explained by science, then you are using the god of the gaps theory. That argument has been debunked many times before. If what you are trying to say is that there are some things that will always be unknown, therefore God did it, then you are using the argument from ignorance. Finally, if what you are trying to say(but I doubt it as it would require you to admit that your religion is not entirely correct), is that even though religion and everything that comes with it, the morals, the miracles so on and so forth have been largely debunked, there are still some things that hold up even today(eg: a phenomenon was explained properly and its explanation is not far from the one we actually have today), then what you are doing is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket, finding out that you guessed a single number correctly but instead of admitting that you were mostly wrong, proclaim that because you guessed that single number, then the rest of them must be correct as well. That's deceitful. > Given that there are a wide variety of religions and belief systems, I'm surprised that you outright decry them as all false Well that's the problem, isn't it? There are many religions out there and not one of them can be deemed as the correct one. Not by scientist but most importantly, not by believers as well. The result is a collection of different accounts about how the Earth was created, who should be worshiped or not(a cow or a virgin?), which prophet was correct(Jesus?) and when the end of the world will occur. So if there are not correct then they are not true. Whether some of them have some semblance of truth in them(by luck most likely) does not make them true. Not one of them has provided evidence that what they preach is true. > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. To do some experimentation, you need to apply logic. Religion is based on faith. Faith requires you to suspend your own logic and accept the answers provided to you as the truth. Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. In this case, you would either give up on logic and accept your religion as the source of truth or you would start realizing that religion is not the source of truth, but a lie. > I'd say similar to math. Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. The fact that it could potentially lead you to something akin to truth is based purely on luck not because the premise was correct. Anecdotes are not a reliable source of truths. Even though witness testimonies have been given a lot of weight in our current judicial system, it does not mean that it is a reliable way of sensing our world. Our brain constantly applies all kinds of filters to the information that is communicated via our senses so that we can make sense of what is going on in the world. That is also the reason why scientists do not rely on their eyes(in particular) to validates experiments but on empiric measurements. I just want to conclude by saying that I have no problem and I even encourage you to practice your religion, but where I do not agree with you is that you present your view of the world through your religion as an alternative to the truth when it is nothing but.

michaelmrose 8y ago

I don't want to personally attack you for how you believe. I believe you ought have a right to come to your own personal conclusions. That said the scripture you linked was started by a literal convicted con man who received revelation by looking at golden tablets that never existed in his hat and translating the truths found therein. He also famously found part of the religious text in Egyptian hieroglyphics that he "translated" into English that turns out not to match the actual text that we can now read. Because of the faiths relatively more recent vintage there is a mountain of non subjective evidence that the faith is literally built on a pile of lies by a bad person. I in particular find that your comparison to math completely baffling. Just because I disagree emphatically with your beliefs and your founder this doesn't mean that you personally are a bad person but I believe your belief system is a huge net negative for the world and allowing you to spread it here unopposed would be net negative for the world. I don't want to shut you up but I really want other people to know the truth of what you are trying to push. If you want a multi page analysis of everything wrong with the latter day saints we can go there.

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
If evolution is concerned by culture, which it is, there must be metric of ‘survival of the fittest religion’... Religion has evolved, and servived, and not necessarily because it is weak. There is plenty room for bias here, and I am not a religious person myself, but I most fear the secular religious who speak like you, like an all-knowing, all-seeing eye. There is no all-seeing-eye. Dimensipns of time, space, and perspective inherently limit any one person from understanding the ways of our world. It is that gapt that myth and religion fills. By way of evolved cultural formations, religion is an instinct among men. All societies will have a religion, whether they adhere to the traditions or not.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  >I most fear the secular religious who speak like you, like an all-knowing, all-seeing eye. I'm an atheist no idea where you got the above. The fact that religion survived says little about its fitness going forward.
swsieber 8y ago
I'd say my religion is a net benefit, by the type of people it teaches its members to be. I know I've seen great blessing in my life, and am a better person because because of what I've learned trying to live my religion. I have various answers to the points you brought up. They probably aren't satisfactory to you. You probably have more points, and I won't have answers to some of them. And that's OK by me. And have mistakes been made? Most definitely. That doesn't take away from the truths I've learned (you might disagree, and that's understandable). I compare it to math because there are principles taught in the church, and teachings about how the plan of salvation works, and certain principles. And you can approach them in various ways and they fit together nicely. Like being able to complete a mathematical proof in different ways. It's the consistency that drives the comparison. And although I do have unanswered questions, they gradually get answered over time (we're talking years here), and I'll probably go to my grave with unanswered questions. I'm OK with that. ----------------------- To address your criticisms. Which conviction are you talking about - is it the one where the "victim" testified that Joseph Smith (the founder) was innocent?[0] He was in the courts a lot of times (as you know), leading to his eventual death. That's the first court case that comes to mind when you say convicted felon. I'm also not surprised that the text didn't match. You know about the portion of Isaiah quoted in 2 Nephi that doesn't match the Joseph Smith translation of same part of the Bible, right? I don't consider that a mark against him as a fraud, given the nature of his transactions (e.g. the process with the stones, of which there is copious documentation). (Edited for clarity:) Your statement about the gold plates could be read that there was proof he never had the gold plates (tablets). For the record, he was consistent about his statement about their existence (sorry for the awkward phrasing - he didn't have them all the time, and I'm trying to not be ambiguous...). Interestingly enough, the people he showed them (the plates) to never recanted their testimony about said plates, even though they left the church. You must know the standards the restored church encourages, so believing that it's a net negative signals to me that you might think it's because of moral issues the church takes a stance on, like pornography, drugs, sex outside of marriage, the divinity of gender and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of god? I'm guessing? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could call the church a net negative... Edit: I do encourage perusing the church's official history stuff[1]. I say this not to convince you that I'm right, but because they've put up a lot of stuff in recent years; you might be pleasantly surprised at the number of contentious history items that had formerly been basically ignored or undocumented that are now up there. [0] https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-trial?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-... [1] https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/study/church-history?lang=eng

rdm_blackhole 8y ago

As somebody else said, I have nothing against you personally but I believe that the narrative that you are pushing is false so I have to rebut it. > Religions include all sorts of truth. How so? By definition, there is only one truth. Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. There is no room for interpretation in truth. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: If what you were trying to say was: there are some things in religion that cannot yet be explained by science, then you are using the god of the gaps theory. That argument has been debunked many times before. If what you are trying to say is that there are some things that will always be unknown, therefore God did it, then you are using the argument from ignorance. Finally, if what you are trying to say(but I doubt it as it would require you to admit that your religion is not entirely correct), is that even though religion and everything that comes with it, the morals, the miracles so on and so forth have been largely debunked, there are still some things that hold up even today(eg: a phenomenon was explained properly and its explanation is not far from the one we actually have today), then what you are doing is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket, finding out that you guessed a single number correctly but instead of admitting that you were mostly wrong, proclaim that because you guessed that single number, then the rest of them must be correct as well. That's deceitful. > Given that there are a wide variety of religions and belief systems, I'm surprised that you outright decry them as all false Well that's the problem, isn't it? There are many religions out there and not one of them can be deemed as the correct one. Not by scientist but most importantly, not by believers as well. The result is a collection of different accounts about how the Earth was created, who should be worshiped or not(a cow or a virgin?), which prophet was correct(Jesus?) and when the end of the world will occur. So if there are not correct then they are not true. Whether some of them have some semblance of truth in them(by luck most likely) does not make them true. Not one of them has provided evidence that what they preach is true. > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. To do some experimentation, you need to apply logic. Religion is based on faith. Faith requires you to suspend your own logic and accept the answers provided to you as the truth. Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. In this case, you would either give up on logic and accept your religion as the source of truth or you would start realizing that religion is not the source of truth, but a lie. > I'd say similar to math. Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. The fact that it could potentially lead you to something akin to truth is based purely on luck not because the premise was correct. Anecdotes are not a reliable source of truths. Even though witness testimonies have been given a lot of weight in our current judicial system, it does not mean that it is a reliable way of sensing our world. Our brain constantly applies all kinds of filters to the information that is communicated via our senses so that we can make sense of what is going on in the world. That is also the reason why scientists do not rely on their eyes(in particular) to validates experiments but on empiric measurements. I just want to conclude by saying that I have no problem and I even encourage you to practice your religion, but where I do not agree with you is that you present your view of the world through your religion as an alternative to the truth when it is nothing but.