Religions > Atheism > Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kevin Simonson" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2003 04:06:31 PM |
| Object: |
Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0311151755.752640ce@posting.google.com>...
=> Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
=> _skeptical_ that your plan would work.
=
=Now, if you could only learn to be _skeptical_ about the Church of
=Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
Church?
Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
Of course it doesn't stop there. It's very interesting that the
New Testament's two Christmas stories, Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 both
name Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet they
disagree on where Mary and Joseph came from before Jesus' birth, they
disagree on where the three of them went after Jesus' birth, and they
disagree on what historical events were happening at the same time as
Jesus' birth. I'm _very_ skeptical about the Christmas story as de-
picted by the Bible.
I'm skeptical about the story of David's fight with Goliath.
Look at 1 Samuel closely. Why are there _two_ stories about how David
met Saul? One story has the two meeting because David wanted to fight
Goliath; the other has the two meeting because David is a good harp
player. Is it really all that likely that both those stories are
true?
Yes, the Book of Mormon is sometimes hard to take seriously. But
the hardest part of the Book of Mormon to believe is the story of the
Jaredites, and the hardest part of the story of the Jaredites to be-
lieve is that there _was_ a Tower of Babbel that they could have come
out of. Evangelicals make such loud noises about the archaeological
evidence in favor of the Bible. Where, then, is the archaeological
(and linguistical) evidence for a building built to reach to heaven,
with all of humanity speaking one language before the building was
started, and all of them speaking different languages when the build-
ing was abandoned?
I'm skeptical about the story of Joseph (son of Jacob) who was
sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. I'm skeptical about the
story of a flood that covered the tops of the mountains (when there's
no geological evidence of such a flood). I'm skeptical about all of
humanity descending from one couple, Adam and Eve, and about their
fall from God's grace simply because they ate two pieces of fruit.
Sometimes when I really, really, want something very bad, and
plead to God for God to please, please, let me have it, I think to my-
self that if it turns out that there isn't a deity after all, then my
pleadings would basically be a waste of time.
I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.
I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.
So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Jan 2004 07:07:41 PM |
|
|
[1 out of two articles in response to Jerry's post.]
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<miMKb.47093$gN.8681@fed1read05>...
=> My point is that just because someone has a preoccupation
=> with something doesn't mean that that someone fears that
=> something. There are some cases where that doesn't hold,
=> so, Jerry, how can you be sure that it holds with me?
=
=Simple enough: Do you fear death? A real, "no god" death?
No, I don't fear it. Not even if it's really complete cessation
of existence.
=> But that idea keeps going on;
=> I love my children, and therefore want them to be
=> happy; because I love them I love _their_ children
=> and want them to be happy; so on to the next
=> generation and beyond.
=>
=> That's why I want to find a way around the
=> extinction of the species.
=
=Okay. I'll buy that. But why does their have to be a god?
God is simply the name I give to the being (or beings) that knows
how to preserve the human species indefinitely and is actively pre-
serving them indefinitely. This may not fit the common usage of the
word God, but it's the way I use it. If there is no God, then nobody
has a plan that is guaranteed for indefinite survival of the human
race, and my contention is that therefore that race will eventually go
extinct.
(Actually, my definition of God is that being that knows how to
preserve _some good things_ indefinitely, but it's pretty clear anyhow
that the race still will not survive without my God's help.)
=> I varied that strategy slightly; instead of asking God if
=> God had inspired the Book of Mormon, I asked God if the LDS
=> Church was true.
=
=So you didn't follow the church's instruction on communicating with
=god about the validity of the church.
Instruction? Moroni 10 is more a catchy idea, or inspiration,
than it is instruction. It's an appeal to one's common sense, and my
grasp of that appeal stayed entirely true to the principles involved.
Moroni appeals to the idea of the existence of a loving God who
wants to communicate with each of us individually. Moroni says that
if we assume that that God exists, then we can start out finding out
the will of God by going to God in prayer and asking God a question,
the answer to which we can use to build the foundations of our own in-
dividual theology. Moroni says to use this approach to finding truth
as a way to find out whether God inspired the Book of Mormon, but com-
mon sense hardly limits this approach to only that discovery. I chose
to use it to find out if God inspired the whole LDS Church, and got my
answer.
=> It was a lot of hard work, because it took a while for me
=> to get ready to change the rest of my life depending on how
=> God answered my question.
=
=(Worked yourself into an emotional state)
This is very possible, though I'm not sure it's entirely rele-
vant.
=> But when I finally made it, no sooner had I asked the
=> question than my body was overwhelmed by an
=> extremely affirmative-feeling sort of shivering sensation.
=> It was very clear to me that God had answered my question
=> and that the answer was yes.
=
=This is how god communicates? Or was it just a reactions from your emotional
=state?
In Autumn 1976, when I asked this question, God knew I would get
this shivering sensation, and also knew that it would be about ten
years before I realized that the shivering sensation might be a reac-
tion from an emotional state. So God knew that that sensation would
be all I had to go on, and knew that I would spend ten years complete-
ly sure that the answer had come from God. So the answer that I got
was the answer God chose to let me have. If God had wanted to send a
different message, God would have sent a different message. But I ne-
ver got a different message, so I'm forced to the conclusion that God
wanted me to have a yes answer, whether the shivering sensation came
directly from God or was a reaction from my "emotional state."
=Wouldn't you think that a god as powerful as yours is supposed to be, could
=do better than to make you shiver? I mean, isn't this the god that talked
=through a burning bush?
Moses needed something that would catch his attention. God al-
ready had my attention, and all I needed was a yes or no.
= That supposedly talked to many others, including
=your LDS church members? And you decided that shivering was an answer? And
=an affirmative one at that? What would a negative answer be? And how are you
=not sure that it wasn't a negative answer? Because you THINK it wasn't?
When you're watching a movie, you can tell by the tone of the mu-
sic whether the emotion you're supposed to be feeling is positive or
negative. In Autumn 1976 the emotion I felt as a result of the shi-
vering sensation was very, very positive. If God had wanted to answer
my question "no," to tell me that God didn't endorse the LDS Church,
God would have given me an experience that God knew would leave me
emotionally negative. That didn't happen.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Jan 2004 10:48:13 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2004 17:07:41 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted in alt.atheism:
God is simply the name I give to the being (or beings) that knows
how to preserve the human species indefinitely
You're assuming that preserving the human species indefinitely is
possible. Since you have no evidence that it is, it's just a pipe
dream at this point.
Moroni says that
if we assume that that God exists, then we can start out finding out
the will of God
Only if your assumption is correct. If it isn't you can assume all
you want but, since there is no will of the god that doesn't exist,
you'll never actually find out anything. (You can invent or imagine,
but that's not the same as finding out.)
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
11 Feb 2004 12:30:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<8hcp00l0hhu3i5ja99so2mvtl23bpooaff@Pern.rk>...
=>God is simply the name I give to the being (or beings) that knows
=>how to preserve the human species indefinitely
=
=You're assuming that preserving the human species indefinitely is
=possible. Since you have no evidence that it is, it's just a pipe
=dream at this point.
Al, your's is the type of mentality that would have sent the
United States back into isolationism in the aftermath of World War II.
Those who favored the formation of a United Nations (in the US and
Europe) were assuming that an organization dedicated to promoting
world peace was possible. Since they had no evidence that it was pos-
sible (and some evidence to the contrary--look at what happened to the
ill-fated League of Nations), the UN was just a pipe dream at that
point. Or so your reasoning would say.
But enough world leaders wanted the UN to work badly enough that
they invested enough energy into bringing it about that it came into
existence. Even then an argument could be made against the UN's for-
mation. For about forty years the UN Security Council was locked into
a stalemate because the world's two big superpowers, the US and the
Soviet Union, both held veto power over that council. But then after
the Soviet Union dissolved in the early 1990's, the UN came into its
own as a true influence for good in the world.
Preserving the human species indefinitely is every bit as much of
a priority as establishing world peace in today's world. Whether or
not it can be judged to be possible is as irrelevant as whether or not
it could be judged to be possible to form the UN back in the 1940's.
Humanity needs both to be possible, badly enough that people should
work towards both, regardless of the evidence of the possibility of
the desirable outcome. And with all the energy of large numbers of
people putting their efforts into either project, who's to say that
they won't accomplish their goal?
=>Moroni says that
=>if we assume that that God exists, then we can start out finding out
=>the will of God
=
=Only if your assumption is correct. If it isn't you can assume all
=you want but, since there is no will of the god that doesn't exist,
=you'll never actually find out anything. (You can invent or imagine,
=but that's not the same as finding out.)
Al, your goal appears to be finding out what the truth is, even
if the truth is bad news. _My_ goal is based on my faith in the exis-
tence of God, and is to do the will of God. Although because I have
an LDS background, my faith leads me to work toward the benefit of the
human race, so I further good causes whether a God actually exists or
not.
But you're right; if my assumption is incorrect then there
wouldn't be a "will of the god that doesn't exist"; so what? What do
I lose in my life by assuming that God exists?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
11 Feb 2004 10:34:37 PM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2004 10:30:12 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<8hcp00l0hhu3i5ja99so2mvtl23bpooaff@Pern.rk>...
=>God is simply the name I give to the being (or beings) that knows
=>how to preserve the human species indefinitely
=
=You're assuming that preserving the human species indefinitely is
=possible. Since you have no evidence that it is, it's just a pipe
=dream at this point.
Al, your's is the type of mentality that would have sent the
United States back into isolationism in the aftermath of World War II.
World War II was real. Isolationism was real. Reversing entropy
isn't possible.
Those who favored the formation of a United Nations (in the US and
Europe) were assuming that an organization dedicated to promoting
world peace was possible. Since they had no evidence that it was pos-
sible (and some evidence to the contrary--look at what happened to the
ill-fated League of Nations), the UN was just a pipe dream at that
point. Or so your reasoning would say.
No, that's just your fallacy of equivocation.
Preserving the human species indefinitely is every bit as much of
a priority as establishing world peace in today's world.
No, it's your wish. I can wish for dry water, or a very light shade
of black, but 4-sided triangles just aren't possible, regardless of
all the fallacies you throw at the problem.
Whether or not it can be judged to be possible is as irrelevant as whether or not
it could be judged to be possible to form the UN back in the 1940's.
Same fallacy.
Humanity needs both to be possible
Which has nothing to do with whether they ARE possible. You keep
overlooking that.
And with all the energy of large numbers of
people putting their efforts into either project, who's to say that
they won't accomplish their goal?
Reality says so. Entropy CAN'T be reversed, except locally. That's
like asking for a star that absorbs energy, rather than generating it.
It wouldn't be a star.
You can't get something that can't be just by wanting it.
=>Moroni says that
=>if we assume that that God exists, then we can start out finding out
=>the will of God
=Only if your assumption is correct. If it isn't you can assume all
=you want but, since there is no will of the god that doesn't exist,
=you'll never actually find out anything. (You can invent or imagine,
=but that's not the same as finding out.)
Al, your goal appears to be finding out what the truth is, even
if the truth is bad news. _My_ goal is based on my faith in the exis-
tence of God, and is to do the will of God.
First you have to find objective evidence that the god objectively
exists. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss. Your desires AREN'T
reality, regardless of what you wish.
Although because I have
an LDS background, my faith leads me to work toward the benefit of the
human race, so I further good causes whether a God actually exists or
not.
Wasting time and effort "doing the will of" your god isn't a "Good
cause". Neither is wasting time and effort to create a god that can
reverse entropy.
But you're right; if my assumption is incorrect then there
wouldn't be a "will of the god that doesn't exist"; so what? What do
I lose in my life by assuming that God exists?
Pascal's Wager? Surely you know better than that?
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sag
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Jan 2004 07:09:32 PM |
|
|
[2 out of two articles in response to Jerry's post.]
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<miMKb.47093$gN.8681@fed1read05>...
=> People have pointed out to me since then that there might
=> be other explanations for the shivering sensation than an
=> answer to my question from God.
=
=And you don't thing that's a good point or possibility?
=
=> That's where my choice to believe in God comes in.
=
=So it was a "choice" about there being a god, rather than an answer?
=
=> If there is a God,
=
=WHOA! Why are you using the word, "if"?
Wow, Jerry, you're sure coming into this discussion late. In my
first posting on this thread (the original "Skeptical about the LDS
Church" article) I expressed my doubts in even the very existence of
God. Sometimes, I said, I doubt that God exists, though I keep coming
back to the belief that God exists. In my current state of thinking I
think you shouldn't be surprised to hear the word "if" coming out of
my mouth from time to time.
=> So whether it was God making me have that feeling or not,
=> God wanted me to have it; otherwise God would have made me
=> feel something else.
=
=You contradict yourself in one sentence. Look at it. You overflow with
=oxymoron.
Jerry, it might be helpful if you pointed out the contradiction
and/or the oxymoron.
=So you're not really all that sure you talked to a god. Or if you did, what
=the answer was. And you admit to the possibility of there not being a god?
_I admit "the possibility of there not being a god_." If I
didn't consider that possibility from time to time, this thread would
hardly have had the subject line it currently has, wouldn't you think?
I understand why some people are atheists, and quite frankly I don't
know of a compelling argument I can give to many of them as to why
they should convert and become theists.
That said, _if_ there _is_ a God, then I am absolutely sure I
talked to that God back in Autumn 1976, and I'm _fully convinced_ that
the answer I got immediately after that communication was precisely
the answer God wanted me to get.
=Do you see why we Atheist think you theist are so illogical and weird?
What is so illogical about my brand of theism?
= And
=why I said:
=
=>> Your desperation is so obvious, and sad.
=>> It is why I feel so sorry for you religious.
=>> Searching; hoping; longing for an 'ever after.'
=> Jerry, you keep trying to pin me down with a
=> desperation for an "ever after." I have _never,
=> ever_ in this thread expressed the _slightest
=> interest_ in an "ever after"!
=
=Simple enough: DO you have an interest in an ever after?
Yes, as a matter of fact I do have an interest in an ever after,
though I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. I talked
about God as the preserver of some good things into the eternities,
and from that you accused me of being obsessed with an "ever after."
That's like having a discussion with a fiscal conservative over
the need to have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. constitution,
and suddenly blurting out that the fiscal conservative is obsessed
with protesting against abortion clinics. Now it may turn out that
the fiscal conservative is actually (also) a _social_ conservative,
and it may turn out that s/he is in fact pro-life. That hardly makes
this fiscal conservative obsessed with abortion clinics. And further-
more, what exactly do abortion clinics have to do with a discussion
that started out about a balanced budget amendment?
=> It's you that has the preoccupation, Jerry, a
=> preoccupation of stereotyping me as "you religious."
=
=Simple enough: Are you religious?
Jerry, there's a big difference between being religious and being
"you religious." You'd like to lump me into the same category that
you put all the Evangelicals that you know, and perhaps a sizeable
number of the Mormons that you know. But I don't fit. I don't belong
in that category. I don't believe in an absolutely omnipotent or ab-
solutely omniscient God, and I don't even have a firm belief that God
created the world. So how do you lump me into the category that
you've labeled "you religious"?
Yes, I'm religious. As far as I can tell I'm devout. So what's
your point?
=The fallacy of your thinking is such that you think shivering is an
=affirmative communication from a god. You'll state you know there's a god;
=then say "if" there's a god. And then you apparently don't see these
=illogical contradictions and conclusions.
Why should I believe that it's a fallacy to think that a shiver-
ing sensation that coursed through my entire body was a communication
from God to me?
We could spend a lot of time discussing what I know and what I
don't know, or what anybody knows and what s/he doesn't know. Any
system of knowledge has a set of axioms that it builds on.
I am personally interested in eternal matters. I contend that
any person with a conscience will eventually turn her/his mind to
eternal matters and try to figure out how to make lasting (that is,
eternal) contributions to society. Any such person will have to de-
cide whether s/he is going to believe in a current deity or is going
to work toward the coming to be of some future deity. I have chosen
the former, and therefore the existence of God is an axiom for me.
At the same time I recognize that a possibility exists that that
axiom might be false, and therefore I "say 'if' there's a god."
=Can you at least see why we Atheist think you theist are nuts?
Jerry, I'm not convinced that you've given my way of thinking a
fair chance. If I could see that you recognized that my viewpoint is
radically different from most of the You Theist ranters you're fami-
liar with, and have you state that I'm still nuts, then maybe I'd
agree with you that there is some reason to consider me nuts.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Jan 2004 10:57:14 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2004 17:09:32 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted in alt.atheism:
What is so illogical about my brand of theism?
Theism, per se, is illogical, yours or anyone else's.
=The fallacy of your thinking is such that you think shivering is an
=affirmative communication from a god. You'll state you know there's a god;
=then say "if" there's a god. And then you apparently don't see these
=illogical contradictions and conclusions.
Why should I believe that it's a fallacy to think that a shiver-
ing sensation that coursed through my entire body was a communication
from God to me?
Because many people shiver like that many times. Are you claiming
that all such occurrences are communications between your god and
those people? Or is it only a communication from your god when it
happens to you?
I am personally interested in eternal matters. I contend that
any person with a conscience will eventually turn her/his mind to
eternal matters and try to figure out how to make lasting (that is,
eternal) contributions to society.
Since no society is eternal, no contribution to a society has to be
eternal, even if the contribution lasts as long as the society does.
Mankind has lasted about 200,000 years so far. Dinosaurs lasted for
more than 100 MILLION years (500 times as long as we have) but they've
been gone almost that long. Do we have much of a chance of surviving
100 million years? Not unless you're into very small numbers.
Any such person will have to de-
cide whether s/he is going to believe in a current deity or is going
to work toward the coming to be of some future deity.
Or is totally unconcerned with deities at all.
I have chosen
the former, and therefore the existence of God is an axiom for me.
Existence is objective. What you mean is that your belief in your god
is axiomatic.
=Can you at least see why we Atheist think you theist are nuts?
Jerry, I'm not convinced that you've given my way of thinking a
fair chance.
Assuming a god and assuming that the human species can somehow be made
eternal doesn't require "a fair chance", any more than belief in the
Easter Beagle does.
If I could see that you recognized that my viewpoint is
radically different from most of the You Theist ranters you're fami-
liar with, and have you state that I'm still nuts, then maybe I'd
agree with you that there is some reason to consider me nuts.
Since religion is a form of mental illness, calling you nuts, while
impolite, is axiomatic.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
11 Feb 2004 12:27:17 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<aqcp001mlkp9kpdag0en979n8a1o3upl75@Pern.rk>...
=>What is so illogical about my brand of theism?
=
=Theism, per se, is illogical, yours or anyone else's.
Note, Kevin asked Jerry Sturdivant what is so illogical about
Kevin's brand of theism. Al responded by saying _anybody's_ brand of
theism is illogical. Al, since you've joined in on this discussion,
let me try again: what is so illogical about my brand of theism?
=>= And then you apparently don't see these
=>=illogical contradictions and conclusions.
=>Why should I believe that it's a fallacy to think that a shiver-
=>ing sensation that coursed through my entire body was a communication
=>from God to me?
=
=Because many people shiver like that many times. Are you claiming
=that all such occurrences are communications between your god and
=those people? Or is it only a communication from your god when it
=happens to you?
Al, do you have data to back that up? I described my experience
as an extremely positive (and therefore affirmative) "shivering sensa-
tion that coursed through my entire body." Is it documented that
"many people shiver like that many times"?
In answer to your question, it's totally possible that God tai-
lors God's communication with an individual to what that individual is
prepared to receive. In my case God knew that a "shivering sensation
that coursed through my entire body" would be enough for me to con-
clude that I had received a message from God, and therefore God let
that experience happen to me. My guess is that many people have
joined the LDS Church because of a similar experience and a similar
sensation. If you personally, Al, can't bring yourself to accept a
shivering sensation like the one I described as communication from
God, then by all means tell God that you need something else, some-
thing that you can be sure is communication from God. And then be pa-
tient and wait for it. (I'm not asking you to put your life on hold
while you're waiting; just keep your question to God in the back of
your mind as you go about your normal life, and see how God reacts to
your request over time.)
=>I am personally interested in eternal matters. I contend that
=>any person with a conscience will eventually turn her/his mind to
=>eternal matters and try to figure out how to make lasting (that is,
=>eternal) contributions to society.
=
=Since no society is eternal, no contribution to a society has to be
=eternal, even if the contribution lasts as long as the society does.
=Mankind has lasted about 200,000 years so far. Dinosaurs lasted for
=more than 100 MILLION years (500 times as long as we have) but they've
=been gone almost that long. Do we have much of a chance of surviving
=100 million years? Not unless you're into very small numbers.
Al, a while back I told the readers I taught my children that God
existed, and asked what the alternative was. Someone said I could
teach them reality; was that you? At any rate, I would ask, is this
that you have just said about the human race's probable extinction re-
ality, the reality that you would have me teach my children?
If so, then _this is the reason why_ I don't teach my children
reality! Judging the probable lifetime of homo sapiens based on the
past lifetime of the dinosaurs! Sheesh! Humans are not dinosaurs.
Humans are intelligent; dinosaurs were not. Humans are capable of
making long-term goals; dinosaurs were not. It's _extremely_ simplis-
tic to assume that humans will not live a hundred million years simply
because dinosaurs only lived about that long.
=>Any such person will have to de-
=>cide whether s/he is going to believe in a current deity or is going
=>to work toward the coming to be of some future deity.
=
=Or is totally unconcerned with deities at all.
Al, recall that by "[a]ny such person" I was referring to a "per-
son with a conscience." My contention was that a person with a con-
science would care about the next generation of humanity _and their
descendants_. You can't be working toward the welfare of the next ge-
neration of humanity and their descendants without fitting a deity of
the type that I've defined into the equation somewhere, sooner or la-
ter.
=>=Can you at least see why we Atheist think you theist are nuts?
=>Jerry, I'm not convinced that you've given my way of thinking a
=>fair chance.
=
=Assuming a god and assuming that the human species can somehow be made
=eternal doesn't require "a fair chance", any more than belief in the
=Easter Beagle does.
Al, I think you're selling the human race short. You're putting
limits on what that race can accomplish. I would never do that, would
never say that if we showed the human race that without my type of de-
ity the human race would not survive, and then declare that humanity
could never produce such a deity. Humanity has a history of meeting
challenges like that when they are posed just so. The sky's the limit
on what humanity can accomplish when it puts its collective mind to
it.
Belief in the Easter Beagle is not essential to the indefinite
survival of the human race, so I foresee no future movements among hu-
mans struggling to create an Easter Beagle. But a deity of some sort
_is_ essential to that indefinite survival, and that makes all the
difference in the world.
=>If I could see that you recognized that my viewpoint is
=>radically different from most of the You Theist ranters you're fami-
=>liar with, and have you state that I'm still nuts, then maybe I'd
=>agree with you that there is some reason to consider me nuts.
=
=Since religion is a form of mental illness, calling you nuts, while
=impolite, is axiomatic.
Ah, but in my last post I admitted the possibility that my axiom
might be wrong. Al, do you admit the possibility that your axiom, in
which I'm called nuts, might be wrong too?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
11 Feb 2004 10:27:34 PM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2004 10:27:17 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<aqcp001mlkp9kpdag0en979n8a1o3upl75@Pern.rk>...
=>What is so illogical about my brand of theism?
=
=Theism, per se, is illogical, yours or anyone else's.
Note, Kevin asked Jerry Sturdivant what is so illogical about
Kevin's brand of theism. Al responded by saying _anybody's_ brand of
theism is illogical. Al, since you've joined in on this discussion,
let me try again: what is so illogical about my brand of theism?
The same thing that's illogical about any brand of theism. Religion
is illogical per se. Did you understand it this time?
=>= And then you apparently don't see these
=>=illogical contradictions and conclusions.
=>Why should I believe that it's a fallacy to think that a shiver-
=>ing sensation that coursed through my entire body was a communication
=>from God to me?
=Because many people shiver like that many times. Are you claiming
=that all such occurrences are communications between your god and
=those people? Or is it only a communication from your god when it
=happens to you?
Al, do you have data to back that up?
You're making the assertion - I don't have to disprove it.
I described my experience
as an extremely positive (and therefore affirmative) "shivering sensa-
tion that coursed through my entire body." Is it documented that
"many people shiver like that many times"?
It's your burden to prove that a "shivering sensation that coursed
through my entire body." is, indeed, a communication from a god. So
far the only evidence we have is that it's a bunch of muscular
contractions, and we have your assertion that it's a communication
from your god. Assertions aren't evidence.
In answer to your question, it's totally possible that God tai-
lors God's communication with an individual to what that individual is
prepared to receive. In my case God knew that a "shivering sensation
that coursed through my entire body" would be enough for me to con-
clude that I had received a message from God, and therefore God let
that experience happen to me.
Or, conversely, you shivered and imagined that it was a communication
from your god.
=>I am personally interested in eternal matters. I contend that
=>any person with a conscience will eventually turn her/his mind to
=>eternal matters and try to figure out how to make lasting (that is,
=>eternal) contributions to society.
=Since no society is eternal, no contribution to a society has to be
=eternal, even if the contribution lasts as long as the society does.
=Mankind has lasted about 200,000 years so far. Dinosaurs lasted for
=more than 100 MILLION years (500 times as long as we have) but they've
=been gone almost that long. Do we have much of a chance of surviving
=100 million years? Not unless you're into very small numbers.
Al, a while back I told the readers I taught my children that God
existed, and asked what the alternative was. Someone said I could
teach them reality; was that you?
It sounds like me.
At any rate, I would ask, is this
that you have just said about the human race's probable extinction re-
ality, the reality that you would have me teach my children?
Yes. What's wrong with teaching children whatever truth they're old
enough to learn? (I have no idea how old your children are. I
wouldn't teach 3-year-olds about death. I wouldn't hesitate to teach
a 19-year-old about species extinction. In either case, I wouldn't
make up stories and tell the children that they're the truth.)
If so, then _this is the reason why_ I don't teach my children
reality! Judging the probable lifetime of homo sapiens based on the
past lifetime of the dinosaurs! Sheesh! Humans are not dinosaurs.
Humans are intelligent; dinosaurs were not.
We're not intelligent to change what life is, which is what it would
take to create life that won't become extinct as long as the universe
lasts. We won't, and there's nothing we can do about that. If we
change that, what we'll have won't be us, it'll be some other species.
Humans are capable of making long-term goals; dinosaurs were not.
What has what we want to do with reality? We can want anything, but
that won't change anything. We're animals that will eventually become
extinct. Wanting our species to live forever, meaning that the
universe will last forever, won't change entropy or extinction.
It's _extremely_ simplis-
tic to assume that humans will not live a hundred million years simply
because dinosaurs only lived about that long.
No species lives much longer than that. That's just how life works.
=>Any such person will have to de-
=>cide whether s/he is going to believe in a current deity or is going
=>to work toward the coming to be of some future deity.
=Or is totally unconcerned with deities at all.
Al, recall that by "[a]ny such person" I was referring to a "per-
son with a conscience."
And I said, "or is totally unconcerned with deities at all".
"Conscience" and "belief in a god" aren't the same thing. They're not
even related.
My contention was that a person with a con-
science would care about the next generation of humanity _and their
descendants_.
Which has nothing to do with believing that if we need a god, and we
want one hard enough, one will be there. That's known as being a
child, not as ""having a conscience".
You can't be working toward the welfare of the next ge-
neration of humanity and their descendants without fitting a deity of
the type that I've defined into the equation somewhere, sooner or la-
ter.
You can't be working toward the welfare of humanity and also believe
in a god. We have thousands of years of proof of that.
=>=Can you at least see why we Atheist think you theist are nuts?
=>Jerry, I'm not convinced that you've given my way of thinking a
=>fair chance.
=Assuming a god and assuming that the human species can somehow be made
=eternal doesn't require "a fair chance", any more than belief in the
=Easter Beagle does.
Al, I think you're selling the human race short.
Sorry but thinking that wanting a god will make one is beyond childish
- it's a sign of mental deficiency. It CERTAINLY doesn't warrant any
thought by sane people.
You're putting limits on what that race can accomplish.
No, I'm putting limits on your fantasy. Life isn't immortal. Period.
Whether you want it to be has nothing to do with that, and won't
change that.
I would never do that, would
never say that if we showed the human race that without my type of de-
ity the human race would not survive, and then declare that humanity
could never produce such a deity.
Which is why that doesn't require any time spent on it by sane people.
Humanity has a history of meeting challenges like that when they are posed just so.
Sorry, no. Humanity has NO history of violating natural law, which is
what you're claiming we can do.
The sky's the limit on what humanity can accomplish when it puts its collective mind to
it.
Only as far as possible things are concerned. Impossible things -
like becoming the creator of the universe, or reversing entropy, isn't
within the limits of what we can accomplish.
Belief in the Easter Beagle is not essential to the indefinite survival of the human race
Neither is belief in a god.
But a deity of some sort _is_ essential to that indefinite survival, and that makes all the
difference in the world.
Now you have to learn the difference between a deity that objectively
exists, and a deity that we want to exist. The former - if
omnipotent, which is impossible - could keep us alive and human
forever. The latter can't do as much as Snoopy.
=>If I could see that you recognized that my viewpoint is
=>radically different from most of the You Theist ranters you're fami-
=>liar with, and have you state that I'm still nuts, then maybe I'd
=>agree with you that there is some reason to consider me nuts.
=Since religion is a form of mental illness, calling you nuts, while
=impolite, is axiomatic.
Ah, but in my last post I admitted the possibility that my axiom
might be wrong.
You admitted that definite nonsense might be wrong? Gee, that was big
of you.
Al, do you admit the possibility that your axiom, in
which I'm called nuts, might be wrong too?
No. If you believe in a god, you're mentally deficient. If you
believe that we can create a god by wanting there to be one, you're
not even that sane.
Even if many share your beliefs it makes no difference. Religion
would be a mental defect even if every human being on the planet were
religious.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duwayne Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
28 Dec 2003 06:45:26 PM |
|
|
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312272033.229075a@posting.google.com>...
duwaynea@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312231423.40606155@posting.google.com>...
=> I don't believe in the same sort of deity that most theists be-
=> lieve in. For one thing, I don't believe God is either absolutely om-
=> nipotent or absolutely omniscient. I also don't have a firm convic-
=> tion that God created the Earth. When you take all those things away
=> from God, I think you greatly increase the likelihood that that deity
=> exists.
=<snip>
=
=If you strip him of enough attributes, it's a virtual guarantee.
Touche. Ouch; well stated.
As god, I thank you.
I think my point all along, though, is that theists for centuries
have been talking about a Straw God. They've been propping up for
worship a being that is impossible for thinking people like you and me
_to_ worship. And they don't have to do that.
You don't have to worship anything. In my opinion, any god worth it's
salt wouldn't *want* our worship in the first place.
Thinking people need to stand back and think about what is essen-
tial in the idea of God and what is not.
Wasn't it about being able to speak on behalf of a non-existent
authority, so other people could be controlled?
Did God, in fact, ever _say_
that He was absolutely omnipotent or absolutely omniscient, or were
those in fact ideas of the early Greek philosophers that some well-
meaning Christian "Fathers" inserted into Christian theology? (Rene
Descartes didn't help either.)
Did god ever say *anything?* Seems it's all people pretending to
speak for god, sort of like how you do, when you pretend to establish
his/her/its characteristics.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
06 Jan 2004 01:07:41 PM |
|
|
(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312281646.254171b1@posting.google.com>...
=> I think my point all along, though, is that theists for centuries
=> have been talking about a Straw God. They've been propping up for
=> worship a being that is impossible for thinking people like you and me
=> _to_ worship. And they don't have to do that.
=
=You don't have to worship anything. In my opinion, any god worth it's
=salt wouldn't *want* our worship in the first place.
In Frank Herbert's novel _Dune_ the Harkonnen political body al-
most achieves its goal of wiping out the Atreides political body on
planet Arrakis, and does in fact capture the ruling Atreides duke,
Leto Atreides, who dies. But Leto's fifteen-year-old son Paul and
Paul's mother Jessica, escape into the desert that covers the majority
of the planet, and are discovered by a group of about fifty desert
dwellers who knew they were heading in that direction and went looking
for them.
Jessica Atreides was a member of an organization called the Bene
Gesserit that have for centuries been trying to breed the superior
minds of the galaxy together in order to create people with superior
thinking capabilities, and Paul is the culmination of those efforts.
Furthermore, the desert dwellers, called Fremen, have legends of an
offworld boy who will come to liberate them from their opressors,
which in this case are the conquering Harkonnen.
I think it would not be safe to say that Paul can see the future,
but he can see future possibilities. One of the themes of the book is
that from time to time humanity has what Herbert calls jihads, which
for him means essentially holy revolutions, where faith-driven masses
overthrow the governments and attempt to install new rulers more in
tune with their spiritual values. Paul sees that within the next
three or four years the universe will be ripe for such a jihad, and
also sees quite clearly that his arrival among these Fremen could
spark one.
He's had very thorough moral training at the hands of Atreides
scholars, and is therefore repulsed by the thought of such carnage re-
sulting from his actions. But the more he considers possible future
scenarios, the more he's convinced that the jihad is inevitable. In
fact at one point Herbert writes that Paul realizes that nothing less
than the deaths of all the people of the group, himself, his mother,
and the fifty Fremen, would stop this incident from sparking the
dreaded holy war. Herbert doesn't say so, but my guess is that Paul
can't bring himself to kill such, or maybe he realizes he couldn't
pull it off.
At any rate he decides that since the jihad is virtually inevit-
able, the best place to control it, to reduce its excesses, is from
the top. So he, Paul Atreides, personifies the holy revolution.
Three years later he leads his Fremen fighters in a war of vengeance
against the Harkonnens and their allies on Arrakis, House Corrino,
that had previously held a hegemony over the entire galaxy. Over the
next twelve years Paul took the jihad out to the galaxy and gained to-
tal control.
Herbert extended this theme in the third and fourth book of the
Dune series. Paul kept as much violence as he could out of the jihad,
but did nothing to prevent future jihads from rising up. His son,
Leto Atreides II, the son of a prescient father and a Fremen mother,
saw that if war kept sweeping human civilization on a regular basis as
it had in the past, then someday humanity would self-destruct, and no-
body would survive.
Leto resolved to teach humanity a lesson that its "bones would
remember," a lesson it needed to learn if it was going to survive in-
definitely. As Paul had personified his time's jihad, Leto personi-
fied God himself, as the name of the fourth book suggests, _God Empe-
ror of Dune_.
I've thought for a long time that if God is real, then these sto-
ries have a lot to tell us about that God. The Bible describes God as
a strict judge, ready to send the unsaved into an endless Hell, where
they will suffer forever. But the real strict judge isn't God at all;
it's humanity's collective conscience. God knew that when each human
realized that her/his soul was eternal, that s/he was going to stay
aware of her/his life forever, that that person's conscience would
tear that person to shreds.
In my opinion, that's why Jesus' atonement works. A large por-
tion of the human population can believe that Jesus led a sinless
life. They think about his horrible suffering and their sense of
right and wrong protests the travesty. They think, Jesus had to die
for something! His life and death _gets their attention_. Paul said
that Jesus suffered and died for our sins, and we think, "Maybe that's
it--maybe that's why Jesus had to suffer and die." A lot of people
find that they can actually believe that, and therefore they use Je-
sus' atonement to turn their lives around, both temporally and eter-
nally.
So I guess my response to Duwayne's article is that God really
has no desire that people worship Him personally. Rather, he recog-
nizes that after we die we're going to be bound _by our very nature_
to worship that great God that our consciences turn into, unforgiving
monsters that will plague us for the rest of eternity. God personi-
fies those monsters, keeping in character just like Paul Atreides and
Leto II did, and then looks at Jesus' atonement and declares that it
paid the price, and does it believably enough that many, many people
buy into it, and their consciences buy it too.
=> Thinking people need to stand back and think about what is essen-
=> tial in the idea of God and what is not.
=
=Wasn't it about being able to speak on behalf of a non-existent
=authority, so other people could be controlled?
I was referring to "what is essential in the idea of God" to the
_people being controlled_, not the people doing the controlling. :)
=> Did God, in fact, ever _say_
=> that He was absolutely omnipotent or absolutely omniscient, or were
=> those in fact ideas of the early Greek philosophers that some well-
=> meaning Christian "Fathers" inserted into Christian theology? (Rene
=> Descartes didn't help either.)
=
=Did god ever say *anything?* Seems it's all people pretending to
=speak for god, sort of like how you do, when you pretend to establish
=his/her/its characteristics.
Duwayne, what you describe is a very real phenomenon, people try-
ing to control other people by fabricating a deity that they say backs
them, and getting the masses to do their will thereby. That's why
I've tried to make my definition of God as simple as possible. The
idea is that the fewer characteristics we imagine our deity having,
and the stronger the intuition is that a deity would actually _have_
those characteristics, the more likely it is that a deity like that
actually existed.
You've already heard that definition, Duwayne. God is that per-
son (or group of people) that knows how to preserve eternally that
nonempty set of good things that get preserved eternally, and takes
the necessary action to preserve it. End of statement.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duwayne Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
28 Dec 2003 06:46:22 PM |
|
|
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312272033.229075a@posting.google.com>...
duwaynea@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312231423.40606155@posting.google.com>...
=> I don't believe in the same sort of deity that most theists be-
=> lieve in. For one thing, I don't believe God is either absolutely om-
=> nipotent or absolutely omniscient. I also don't have a firm convic-
=> tion that God created the Earth. When you take all those things away
=> from God, I think you greatly increase the likelihood that that deity
=> exists.
=<snip>
=
=If you strip him of enough attributes, it's a virtual guarantee.
Touche. Ouch; well stated.
As god, I thank you.
I think my point all along, though, is that theists for centuries
have been talking about a Straw God. They've been propping up for
worship a being that is impossible for thinking people like you and me
_to_ worship. And they don't have to do that.
You don't have to worship anything. In my opinion, any god worth it's
salt wouldn't *want* our worship in the first place.
Thinking people need to stand back and think about what is essen-
tial in the idea of God and what is not.
Wasn't it about being able to speak on behalf of a non-existent
authority, so other people could be controlled?
Did God, in fact, ever _say_
that He was absolutely omnipotent or absolutely omniscient, or were
those in fact ideas of the early Greek philosophers that some well-
meaning Christian "Fathers" inserted into Christian theology? (Rene
Descartes didn't help either.)
Did god ever say *anything?* Seems it's all people pretending to
speak for god, sort of like how you do, when you pretend to establish
his/her/its characteristics.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Israel" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
23 Dec 2003 06:25:41 PM |
|
|
Duwayne Anderson I Not God?
He can be. He can be anything he wants, when he alone by himself.
He can even be an alien in a spaceship.
On 23 Dec 2003 09:04:21 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<anpqsvs6omqm5hlf9lhud9e9tjesbjv86d@Pern.rk>...
=And what would be the reason for it, anyway? Stone buildings can't be
=built much beyond a couple of hundred feet tall. Most major cities
=have buildings much taller than that, and no god has destroyed them.
Good point.
=> I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
=>that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
=>dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
=>share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
=
=And you think belief in a non-existent god (if it objectively exists
=there's objective evidence of that existence) is the "something" you
=owe them?
I don't believe in the same sort of deity that most theists be-
lieve in. For one thing, I don't believe God is either absolutely om-
nipotent or absolutely omniscient. I also don't have a firm convic-
tion that God created the Earth. When you take all those things away
from God, I think you greatly increase the likelihood that that deity
exists. Al, I guess I want to know why you think my God is "non-
existent."
But the answer is yes, belief in my God _is_ the "something" I
owe my children.
Actually, I have two choices. I can believe in God and assure my
children that as long as they try hard to work for the causes that God
wants them to work for, then that God will take care of them in the
eternal scheme of things. That's the general theist approach. Or I
can believe there is no current deity, but let my children know that I
am committed to the long term benefit of them and their descendants.
That's what I call the pretheist approach. God doesn't exist, so
we're at risk in the eternal scheme of things, but we're going to work
on solving the eternal problem _by ourselves_. If we choose to be-
lieve there is no God then that is the only course open to a person of
conscience, to resolve to eventually solve the eternal problem by our-
selves.
I personally have chosen to believe in a current deity.
=> So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
=>message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
=>decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
=>the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
=>science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
=>he started with, what's the alternative?
=
=For a man of intelligence, "anything is better than nothing" is
=clearly a falsehood.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "_anything_ is better than no-
thing." But we do certainly seem to have different emphases, Al. For
you, nothing is an option; for me it's not. For you, arriving at the
truth is the supreme objective, and if that requires us to embrace no-
thingness, then so be it. For me, the eternal welfare of our children
and their descendants is the supreme objective, and therefore we can't
afford to live our lives spiritually neutral.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
23 Dec 2003 07:47:24 PM |
|
|
On 23 Dec 2003 09:04:21 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<anpqsvs6omqm5hlf9lhud9e9tjesbjv86d@Pern.rk>...
=> I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
=>that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
=>dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
=>share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
=And you think belief in a non-existent god (if it objectively exists
=there's objective evidence of that existence) is the "something" you
=owe them?
I don't believe in the same sort of deity that most theists be-
lieve in.
Whatever deity you believe in, there's no objective evidence that it
objectively exists. There is no objective evidence that any god
exists, and there never has been any objective evidence that any god
has objectively existed.
For one thing, I don't believe God is either absolutely om-
nipotent or absolutely omniscient. I also don't have a firm convic-
tion that God created the Earth. When you take all those things away
from God, I think you greatly increase the likelihood that that deity
exists.
When you take away all definition, the probability that your
undefinable "god" exists approaches 1.
Al, I guess I want to know why you think my God is "non- existent."
First define what you mean by "a god". ("God [upper-case "G"] is the
name of the Judeo/Christian god.)
But the answer is yes, belief in my God _is_ the "something" I
owe my children.
You owe your children something you can't define?
Actually, I have two choices. I can believe in God and assure my
children that as long as they try hard to work for the causes that God
wants them to work for, then that God will take care of them in the
eternal scheme of things. That's the general theist approach. Or I
can believe there is no current deity, but let my children know that I
am committed to the long term benefit of them and their descendants.
That's what I call the pretheist approach. God doesn't exist, so
we're at risk in the eternal scheme of things, but we're going to work
on solving the eternal problem _by ourselves_. If we choose to be-
lieve there is no God then that is the only course open to a person of
conscience, to resolve to eventually solve the eternal problem by our-
selves.
You could always just teach your children reality.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "_anything_ is better than no-
thing." But we do certainly seem to have different emphases, Al. For
you, nothing is an option
No, reality is the ONLY option. I don't fantasize that, because I
believe that we need something to exist, it does.
For you, arriving at the
truth is the supreme objective, and if that requires us to embrace no-
thingness, then so be it. For me, the eternal welfare of our children
and their descendants is the supreme objective, and therefore we can't
afford to live our lives spiritually neutral.
Even if truth goes by the wayside, and reality along with it. You
didn't have to say that - we know that's how theists see the world.
Keep your fantasy if it makes you feel better, but the fact that you
fantasize a god doesn't cause one to exist.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
06 Jan 2004 01:05:17 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<fkrhuvs5f3881ae0v6rr382r3u44kc35bm@Pern.rk>...
=>Al, I guess I want to know why you think my God is "non- existent."
=
=First define what you mean by "a god". ("God [upper-case "G"] is the
=name of the Judeo/Christian god.)
Wait a minute, Al. Judaism and Christianity are two very differ-
ent faiths, with two very different ideas of what their respective
Gods actually are. If a Jew can call the deity of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, God; and a Christian can call the father of Jesus of Nazareth,
God; then why in the world can't I call the deity that I believe in,
God? If neither of those two religious traditions by itself has a
copyright on the term God, then why do they both together have a copy-
right on it?
As for the definition of what I mean by God (or _my deity_, if
you prefer), you obviously haven't been following the threads I've
been conversing with Duwayne Anderson on in these newsgroups where
that definition has come up.
I personally believe that some good things will last forever. I
pointed out that nothing good _can_ last forever without some active
entity figuring out how it can last forever and then taking action to
ensure that it does last forever. I call the active entity that takes
that action, God.
=> Actually, I have two choices. I can believe in God and assure my
=>children that as long as they try hard to work for the causes that God
=>wants them to work for, then that God will take care of them in the
=>eternal scheme of things. That's the general theist approach. Or I
=>can believe there is no current deity, but let my children know that I
=>am committed to the long term benefit of them and their descendants.
=>That's what I call the pretheist approach. God doesn't exist, so
=>we're at risk in the eternal scheme of things, but we're going to work
=>on solving the eternal problem _by ourselves_. If we choose to be-
=>lieve there is no God then that is the only course open to a person of
=>conscience, to resolve to eventually solve the eternal problem by our-
=>selves.
=
=You could always just teach your children reality.
That's a pretty simplistic approach. The problem with that is
that nobody has a certain grasp on what reality _is_. Our best guess-
es at what reality is change with time.
Soon after Isaac Newton made his discoveries in the field of phy-
sics reality was <F = MA> and <G_f = M1M2G/D^2>, indicating how all
the moons and planets in the Solar System orbitted one another. How-
ever that soon had to be modified when it was discovered that the pla-
net Mercury didn't orbit the Sun in the way Newton specified it
should.
Soon after Albert Einstein made _his_ discoveries in the field of
physics reality was reflected by general relativity, and Einstein
scoffed at the physicists who advocated quantum mechanics, that ap-
peared to contradict general relativity. General relativity solved
the problem of Mercury's orbit but it was at odds with quantum phy-
sics; general relativity appears by all measures to accurately des-
cribe the universe at the macroscopic level, while quantum mechanics
appears by all measures to accurately describe it at the _microscopic_
level; the trick now is to come up with a Grand Unified Theory to de-
scribe _everything_, that transforms into general relativity at one
end of the spectrum and transforms into quantum mechanics at the other
end.
Then there's sociology. In the aftermath of World War II reality
was that the one attempt at unifying all the nations of the world, to
prevent a future world war, had failed dismally. Reality seemed to
indicate that unifying those nations was impossible, and that time
spent on trying to unite it would be time wasted.
And realists furthering that point of view would have been right
in at least one sense. The United Nations was very much a failure for
forty years. Its main objective, to prevent future wars, was totally
frustrated for the simple reason that the vast majority of the wars
that sprang up over the next forty years were backed on the one side
by the Soviet Union, and on the other side by the United States of
America. Both nations had veto power over the UN Security Council and
could therefore prevent that Security Council from taking any measures
to work toward peace to the detriment of their military objectives.
But it's clear to me that those realists would have been extreme-
ly short-sighted. Sure the UN still has flaws. But since the disso-
lution of the Soviet Union about 1990 that body has lost its paralysis
induced by the Cold War vetoes. France may have still been completely
able to thwart George W. Bush's dream to get a UN-sanctioned war
against Iraq, but it's still very clear that today's UN is a force to
be reckoned with in the struggle to achieve peace in the world.
So people who keep clamoring about the need to teach future gene-
rations what reality is all about, keep having to modify just what
they think reality is. Is it Ptolomeic astronomy, or Newtonian, or
relativistic, or should we put the astronomical question on hold until
we achieve the right Grand Unified Theory? Was it realistic to try to
form the UN or should the USA have stayed isolated from the rest of
the world?
The reality is that there is enough wiggle room in our concepts
of what reality is to fit a deity, and we need to teach our children
that. In fact, the question of whether it can be objectively deter-
mined that a deity exists in 2004 might be the moral equivalent of the
question of whether it could be objectively determined that a UN se-
cretary general existed back in 1943. Whether s/he was there or not
back in 1943 was irrelevant; the relevant thing was that enough poli-
tically powerful people needed a secretary general badly enough that
that secretary general _came into_ existence, and you know what, that
secretary general _did_.
Humanity needs a deity much, much more than it needs a secretary
general. Kofi Annan is doing fine in his work for the benefit of all
the residents of this planet, but his approach is too short term. We
need someone who is working for eternal causes. I've said this be-
fore. I haven't heard an awful lot about Annan taking a stand on glo-
bal warming, and maybe that's not his job. But if global warming ends
up killing off a sizeable majority of the human race, then it could
very possibly have an effect on eternal issues facing the human race,
so it would be nice if _somebody_ was investigating global warming,
wouldn't you think? That somebody may very possibly turn out to be a
deity.
=>For you, arriving at the
=>truth is the supreme objective, and if that requires us to embrace no-
=>thingness, then so be it. For me, the eternal welfare of our children
=>and their descendants is the supreme objective, and therefore we can't
=>afford to live our lives spiritually neutral.
=
=Even if truth goes by the wayside, and reality along with it. You
=didn't have to say that - we know that's how theists see the world.
=Keep your fantasy if it makes you feel better, but the fact that you
=fantasize a god doesn't cause one to exist.
As I said above, "reality" isn't well defined enough to _go_ by
the wayside, nor is truth. I'm in favor of discovering reality and
truth both, but the fact remains that our understanding of both
changes with time, and we shouldn't put too much weight behind certain
theories, assuming they will always describe truth simply because they
are the best representations of the truth we've seen. Remember that
Newtonian mechanics worked fine for objects not moving close to the
speed of light.
I'm fully aware that theorizing a god doesn't cause one to exist,
but trying to partner with a deity that might exist and might not cer-
tainly can't hurt. If a deity exists, it shows that deity that we
want to work with Her/Him, and if no deity does exist, such attempt to
partner with deity might just produce a deity, the same way attempts
to partner with the other nations of the world produced a UN secretary
general.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
06 Jan 2004 10:43:15 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2004 11:05:17 -0800, (Kevin Simonson)
posted to alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<fkrhuvs5f3881ae0v6rr382r3u44kc35bm@Pern.rk>...
=>Al, I guess I want to know why you think my God is "non- existent."
=
=First define what you mean by "a god". ("God [upper-case "G"] is the
=name of the Judeo/Christian god.)
Wait a minute, Al. Judaism and Christianity are two very differ-
ent faiths, with two very different ideas of what their respective
Gods actually are. If a Jew can call the deity of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, God
His name is Yaweh, not God.
; and a Christian can call the father of Jesus of Nazareth,
God; then why in the world can't I call the deity that I believe in,
God?
God is the name of the Christian deity.
If neither of those two religious traditions by itself has a
copyright on the term God, then why do they both together have a copy-
right on it?
You're confusing Yaweh and God - they're not the same guy. Yaweh was
married but had no kids, God was never married but had a son by a
woman he never mated with. See?
As for the definition of what I mean by God (or _my deity_, if
you prefer), you obviously haven't been following the threads I've
been conversing with Duwayne Anderson on in these newsgroups where
that definition has come up.
I personally believe that some good things will last forever. I
pointed out that nothing good _can_ last forever without some active
entity figuring out how it can last forever and then taking action to
ensure that it does last forever. I call the active entity that takes
that action, God.
So you rename existence God. Okay, it doesn't make any difference to
me what you call existence - it exists. But it didn't create
anything, and it won't exist keep us from becoming extinct. In fact,
existence is what will cause us to become extinct.
=You could always just teach your children reality.
That's a pretty simplistic approach.
But it works. Reality is never unreal.
The problem with that is that nobody has a certain grasp on what reality _is_.
Realists do. One thing it isn't is supernatural - like gods and such.
Soon after Isaac Newton made his discoveries in the field of phy-
sics reality was <F = MA> and <G_f = M1M2G/D^2>, indicating how all
the moons and planets in the Solar System orbitted one another. How-
ever that soon had to be modified when it was discovered that the pla-
net Mercury didn't orbit the Sun in the way Newton specified it
should.
Nope. F still = MA under the conditions it was discovered.
Discovering a tadpole in a small puddle doesn't prove that everything
that lives in the water is a tadpole.
Soon after Albert Einstein made _his_ discoveries in the field of
physics reality was reflected by general relativity, and Einstein
scoffed at the physicists who advocated quantum mechanics, that ap-
peared to contradict general relativity.
He never "scoffed" at it - he didn't like the implications. But even
if he had scoffed at it, so what? QM explains things on a quantum
level. GR explains things on a macro level. Things don't work the
same at both levels.
General relativity solved
the problem of Mercury's orbit but it was at odds with quantum phy-
sics
Mercury isn't a quantum event.
But you can still figure out how long it takes a penny to fall 900
feet in a vacuum under 1g using Newton's laws. Nothing's changed but
our view - it's gotten larger.
Then there's sociology.
That's totally subjective, so it's whatever you want it to be.
[snip]
Humanity needs a deity
But our need doesn't determine whether there is one.
=>For you, arriving at the
=>truth is the supreme objective, and if that requires us to embrace no-
=>thingness, then so be it. For me, the eternal welfare of our children
=>and their descendants is the supreme objective, and therefore we can't
=>afford to live our lives spiritually neutral.
=Even if truth goes by the wayside, and reality along with it. You
=didn't have to say that - we know that's how theists see the world.
=Keep your fantasy if it makes you feel better, but the fact that you
=fantasize a god doesn't cause one to exist.
As I said above, "reality" isn't well defined
Reality is. Your understanding of it (assuming you were being honest)
just isn't good enough.
I'm fully aware that theorizing a god doesn't cause one to exist,
but trying to partner with a deity that might exist and might not cer-
tainly can't hurt.
Never heard of Pascal's Wager, eh?
If a deity exists, it shows that deity that we want to work with Her/Him
And if s/he doesn't want you to show that you want to work with
her/him, you get whatever that deity uses as punishment.
and if no deity does exist, such attempt to partner with deity might just produce a deity
Oh, right - your attempt to partner with the creator of the universe
might produce such a creator. You can't understand how utterly ...
what's the word? Brainless is much too mild. The infinite amount of
NEGATIVE intelligence it takes to believe that is beyond human
imagination.
the same way attempts to partner with the other nations of the world produced a UN secretary
general.
The secretary general existed. You really can't see the difference
between creating a title and bestowing it on an existing person, and
creating a supernatural being who was there before the universe
existed?
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Sturdivant" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
07 Jan 2004 03:33:26 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Yaweh was married but had no kids, God was never married
but had a son by a woman he never mated with.
And he never received permission to impregnate her. So it was a rape.
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
07 Jan 2004 07:45:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:33:26 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
<sturdy@lvcm.com> posted to alt.atheism:
"Al Klein"
Yaweh was married but had no kids, God was never married
but had a son by a woman he never mated with.
And he never received permission to impregnate her. So it was a rape.
Yeah, but he's God, so that makes it a *good* thing.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Jan 2004 07:13:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<iu1nvvo9seiegdplg899694drbvjmd8ddo@Pern.rk>...
=>Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
=>news:<fkrhuvs5f3881ae0v6rr382r3u44kc35bm@Pern.rk>...
=>
=>=>Al, I guess I want to know why you think my God is "non-
existent."
=>=
=>=First define what you mean by "a god". ("God [upper-case "G"] is
the
=>=name of the Judeo/Christian god.)
=>
=> Wait a minute, Al. Judaism and Christianity are two very
differ-
=>ent faiths, with two very different ideas of what their respective
=>Gods actually are. If a Jew can call the deity of Abraham, Isaac,
and
=>Jacob, God
=
=His name is Yaweh, not God.
Al, can you say, backpedal? Waffle?
You'll notice that it's you up there saying that God "[upper-case
'G'] is the name of the Judeo/Christian god." Now you're saying that
the Jewish God is "Yaweh."
Not that it's that big of a deal. It's a matter of semantics,
and I've tried very hard (especially on the Internet) not to get
caught up in semantical arguments.
=>As for the definition of what I mean by God (or _my deity_, if you
=>prefer), you obviously haven't been following the threads I've been
=>conversing with Duwayne Anderson on in these newsgroups where that
=>definition has come up. I personally believe that some good things
=>will last forever. I pointed out that nothing good _can_ last for-
=>ever without some active entity figuring out how it can last fore-
=>ver and then taking action to ensure that it does last forever. I
=>call the active entity that takes that action, God.
=
=So you rename existence God. Okay, it doesn't make any difference to
=me what you call existence - it exists. But it didn't create
=anything, and it won't exist keep us from becoming extinct. In fact,
=existence is what will cause us to become extinct.
Wasn't that Rene Descartes' trick, to define God as the perfec-
tion of all imaginable characteristics, and therefore God had to be
perfect in existence, and therefore God had to exist?
That's not my approach at all. If it turns out to be a fact that
all good things will indeed come to an eventual end, then it will be a
fact that my deity does _not_ exist. Things will probably still
exist, but my deity won't. My deity is not simply a renaming of exis-
tence; my deity is that person (or group of people) who preserve those
good things that last forever.
=>Soon after Isaac Newton made his discoveries in the field of phy-
=>sics reality was <F = MA> and <G_f = M1M2G/D^2>, indicating how all
=>the moons and planets in the Solar System orbitted one another.
How-
=>ever that soon had to be modified when it was discovered that the
pla-
=>net Mercury didn't orbit the Sun in the way Newton specified it
should.
=
=Nope. F still = MA under the conditions it was discovered.
So, Al, when Isaac Newton discovered F = MA he was aware of that,
was aware that he could only count on that law holding when an ob-
ject's velocity was small relative to the speed of light? Newton _ex-
pected_ that law to break down the closer to the speed of light an ob-
ject's velocity got?
On the contrary, Newton expected his law to work _whatever_ the
velocity of an object was. And so did all the realists of his day.
=Discovering a tadpole in a small puddle doesn't prove that everything
=that lives in the water is a tadpole.
Sure, but my point is that if it's a _realist_ that discovers the
first body of water, and if the only thing in it is a tadpole, then
it's very likely that that _realist_ will _conclude_ "that everything
that lives in the water is a tadpole"! And that realist would be
wrong.
=>Humanity needs a deity
=
=But our need doesn't determine whether there is one.
Al, I've chosen to believe that there's a deity but I don't ex-
pect you to. Admit that humanity needs a deity (and accept the conse-
quences of that admission) and I'll be happy.
=>=Even if truth goes by the wayside, and reality along with it. You
=>=didn't have to say that - we know that's how theists see the world.
=>=Keep your fantasy if it makes you feel better, but the fact that
you
=>=fantasize a god doesn't cause one to exist.
=>As I said above, "reality"
=>isn't well defined
=
=Reality is. Your understanding of it (assuming you were being
honest)
=just isn't good enough.
My point is that _nobody's_ understanding of reality (as you de-
scribe it) is good enough. We all make mistakes. So how do we teach
our children something that we have such an inadequate understanding
of?
Too often people take the pessimistic attitude in _the name_ of
reality. That's what you've done, Al. You've taken a look at ideas
about deities and concluded that there aren't any. How do you know
that your understanding of reality was sufficiently based in fact for
you to come to that conclusion?
=>I'm fully aware that theorizing a god doesn't cause one to exist,
=>but trying to partner with a deity that might exist and might not
cer-
=>tainly can't hurt.
=
=Never heard of Pascal's Wager, eh?
Pascal's Wager, I've been told by people before in
"alt.christnet.atheism", is flawed, but nobody has ever shown me how
_my particular version_ of Pascal's Wager (assuming as they assert
that my argument is in fact just a version of Pascal's Wager) is
flawed. I'm beginning to doubt that such a flaw exists.
=> If a deity exists, it shows that deity that we want to work with
Her/Him
=
=And if s/he doesn't want you to show that you want to work with
=her/him, you get whatever that deity uses as punishment.
That line of reasoning doesn't go anywhere. If we're going to
live our lives in fear that God might punish us for doing _anything_,
then we're at an impasse. People are going to end up doing absolutely
nothing. And is even _that_ safe? Isn't there just as much of a
chance that God would punish us for doing nothing? Of course there
is. Why then shouldn't we go on the assumption that the deity that
exists is more rational and good than one who would want to dish out
ominous punishments just because we didn't match that deity's unpub-
lished requirements?
=> and if no deity does exist, such attempt to partner with deity
might just produce a deity
=
=Oh, right - your attempt to partner with the creator of the universe
=might produce such a creator. You can't understand how utterly ...
=what's the word? Brainless is much too mild. The infinite amount of
=NEGATIVE intelligence it takes to believe that is beyond human
=imagination.
You've got a lot of adjectives in that response, Al. A simple,
"This speculation is not likely to happen because <fill-in-the-
blank>," would suffice.
=> the same way attempts to partner with the other nations of the
world produced a UN secretary general.
=
=The secretary general existed. You really can't see the difference
=between creating a title and bestowing it on an existing person, and
=creating a supernatural being who was there before the universe
=existed?
Al, you really haven't been listening to what I've been saying.
I _don't_ believe in a supernatural God. The deity I'm talking about
accomplishes whatever S/He accomplishes _within_ physical laws. _I'd
like it_ if the deity I'm talking about "was there before the universe
existed," but that's nonessential. If God doesn't currently exist,
it's still possible that a potential God could come into existence in
the future; that God would not need to have been there before the uni-
verse existed; all that God would need to do is preserve some good
things into the eternities, preserve some good things forever.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne | | | | | | |
