+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Politics and Other Fun (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: I Need To Vent (Prop 8) (/showthread.php?tid=3680)
Pages:
1
2
- Lordpanther14 - 11-10-2008
Since you're talking about Mormons and I'm also one, thought I'd join in.
History is what you make of it and its continually changing. Here's some info on Iron found in America pre-columbian.
The reason why the Church is involved with geneology and has been almost since its creation is because of the principal that even after we die, that there is
still the chance for salvation. A story that I've heard is that a viking king was going to baptized Catholic when he asked the priest where the rest of
his ancertors were. The priest told the king that his family were in Hell. "Then by the gods I shall join them there!" said the King. Don't
know if it happened but I hope it helps get the point across. Honestly, if we're wrong, what does it matter if we baptize people absentee. The people
doing the baptisms, are happy with the belief that they have done a good thing, and since only faithful members are allowed to enter the Temple, they will
continue to live good lives in order to continue the practice. If we're right, then we gave some more people the opportunity to get into heaven. Since
the performing of these ordinances only provides the souls of those who've departed the option of accepting them.
Also I served as a missionary for two years and knocking on doors. Plenty of people wouldn't open their doors when they saw us and that's fine. The
important thing is that we gave everyone the opportunity to learn about it. Just think of the missionaries like door to door salesmen that really believe in
their product.
As for how to vote, the leadership of the church doesn't say. It just tells all of its members to research the topic and to vote on it. Trying to involve
the members in the great political process that is democracy. At least every letter I've heard over the pulpit has been that way. Its not like the
congregation is told to vote a certain way or else they'll go to Hell.
History didn't just happen to other people - Rev Dark - 11-10-2008
Okay Blackaeronaut, here we go.
"Rev, I just say that Satan's out to make everyone as miserable as he is through whatever means necessary. If someone is genuinely happy having a
same-sex partner, then good on them."
Previously you wrote.
"Okay, so while Prop 8 won't necessarily force people to not be homosexuals, I still see it as a step towards Satan's POV and his desire for
everyone to be miserable."
You can't have it both ways. Nice serve to imaginary Satan there. Deny them marriage you make them miserable. Make them miserable, play into
imaginary Satan's hands. I hate to say this, but your decency is showing through the shell of your upbringing. In another day and age, you probably would
have railed against the institutionalised racism of the the Mormon Church. Both speak very well for you; and oh so poorly for the Mormon faith.
"As for the BoM... Just because you don't see any 'traces' of this 'society' doesn't mean that it existed or that it never
migrated. One of the classic examples are the lake and river named for the prophet, Lehi's two eldest sons, Lamen and Lemuel. Look it up
sometime."
Been there, done that, witnesses some rather desperate apologetics.
"As for the society that existed in what became America? Well, according to the book, there was a war so great that all the followers of the faith were
killed off. So where's the remains, you ask? Heh. Funny you should ask that when you got these cultures like the Incans and the Mayans that were every bit
as hethenistic and bloodthirsty as the people that killed off everyone else in the BoM. You see, it's not the first time, nor the last, that one culture
has tried to erase another from the historical record simple because they didn't like the poor saps."
As an excuse that is pretty sodding weak. Shall we discuss the particulars. Unravelling the claims of charlatans is rather easy as the devil is in the
details. The Nephites according to Smith, were agrarian. Horses, cattle and grain - none of the which are present in pre-Colombian North America. So as well
as wiping out the tribes, all the highly useful prizes of war, cattle, horses, grain, etc. Were also slaughtered, and destroyed so completely that no evidence
was found.
Speaking of evidence, how about those huge fortified cities. Once of the great tricks of archaeology is going through the dumps of a site. Where the
locals stashed their trash. Even if the walled cities were flattened completely (highly, highly, unlikely) the middens would remain. With cattle and horse
bones no less.
So can you point to any extant examples of Erons, senines, or ontis kicking about. Or the remains of any temples built "After the manner of the
Jews." How about Ammon's chariots (No wheels and modern horses in Pre-Colombian North America)
An innumerable army with swords and cimeters? No evidence for such weapons, or the large scale metalworks required to produce such metals; what was that
number, or yes, 2,000,000 Jaredite people. That would leave a fucking mark.
I won't even go into modern DNA testing in regards to the presence of Middle Eastern DNA in the native populations.
Hey the well named book of Ether. (And so it came to pass...zzzz.) Cattle, oxen, cows, sheep, horses, asses and sodding great elephants. None of which
are found in Pre-Colombian America.
Okay. Here we go.
The book of Mormon (like other holy books) is a myth. A pretty story made up by a rather dubious con-man. Not a prophet. It is painfully transparent as
such, and its creation is rather well documented. It is a lie that has gained traction. It is not supported in the archaeological record. It is very much a
book of the time that it was written; and of the man who wrote it.
- Black Aeronaut - 11-10-2008
Oh no, I've never heard anyone told that they'd go to hell or anything silly like that. But some of the Stakes that my family has lived in strongly
encouraged voting against things such as marriage rights for homosexuals, which is what kinda rubbed me wrong.
As for the metals thing, don't forget the Spaniard's primary drive to conquer the Native Americans they came accross. Gold, and the acquisition of it.
- Rev Dark - 11-10-2008
Lord Panther wrote
"Also I served as a missionary for two years and knocking on doors. Plenty of people wouldn't open their doors when they saw us and that's
fine. The important thing is that we gave everyone the opportunity to learn about it. Just think of the missionaries like door to door salesmen that really
believe in their product. "
Well done, your analogy made me laugh. If a salesman made the claims on their product that the Mormon Missionaries make, their arses would be standing tall
before the Better Business Bureau. If you buy this lovely set of encyclopedias you also get an afterlife with god and your loved ones. Not only that you can
stay married forever... stop crying... what's more you get a free degree of glory, your stillborn children resurrected, become as a god yourself. All for
the price of 10% of your gross income.
Nice analogy. If it is any consolation, it did make me laugh.
Quote:History is what you make of it and its continually changing. Here's some info on Iron found in America pre-Colombian.
Quote:History is not what you make of it. That is post-modernism douchebaggery. The pre-Colombian metallurgy you note (take a look at the actual artifacts) are
in no way representative of the type or quantity, or material, noted in the Book of Mormon.
"The reason why the Church is involved with genealogy and has been almost since its creation is because of the principal that even after we die, that
there is still the chance for salvation."
Hence I called it ingenious. Greasier than wrapping yourself in bacon and running a marathon, but ingenious. For it is, as it solves the problem that
other similar faiths had, of salvation of people prior to the newest festive variation of the faith. Ingenious. Nasty. The carrot is salvation. The stick
is that if you leave the church you are cut off from your loved ones for all eternity. Nice fucking dogma, nothing like a little emotional blackmail between
friends.
"Honestly, if we're wrong, what does it matter if we baptize people absentee."
Because you would be shameless hucksters taking tithes for a service you clearly have no evidence for, getting them to pay for it in order to enter the
temple where it takes place. Using it as leverage when people wish to leave the church. You are just stating Pascal's wager in a different form. It is a
shit argument to start and does not smell any sweeter for you passing it off like the turd it is.
"The people doing the baptisms, are happy with the belief that they have done a good thing, and since only faithful members are allowed to enter the
Temple, they will continue to live good lives in order to continue the practice."
That is a lie. There is no evidence they will lead 'good; lives. Utah's divorce, rape, murder and strangely enough antidepressant rates are among
the highest in the United States.
"If we're right, then we gave some more people the opportunity to get into heaven. Since the performing of these ordinances only provides the souls
of those who've departed the option of accepting them. "
So you don't care if someone else brought all deceased Mormons into their faith posthumously, against their wishes. By your argument it is would not
matter if they were wrong. In fact it would be useful in hedging your bets for a fulfilling afterlife.
Very silly stuff indeed.
- Black Aeronaut - 11-10-2008
The Jaredites historical record far predates that of the Nephites and Lamanites - they got there first. And long before anyone else got there, they killed
themselves off. There is a land that was called the Land of Desolation by the Nephites and Lamanites where they found nothing but utter ruin - the remains of
a battle where even the women and children were given what weapons were available and made to fight.
One fatal flaw. How the hell did they build all those magnificent cities and temples - some even with a primitive form of running water! - without basic tools
such as the wheel?
Societies have regressed before. The Dark Ages is a shining example of this phenomena after the fall of the Roman Empire. It is quite believable that the
people of ancient America suffered a similar fate.
- Rev Dark - 11-10-2008
"Societies have regressed before. The Dark Ages is a shining example of this phenomena after the fall of the Roman Empire. It is quite believable that
the people of ancient America suffered a similar fate."
Yes. But you can't traipse through previously held Roman Territory and not trip over Roman ruins, artifacts, historical records from contemporary
sources, etc.
That rather fatally puts the boots to your lame excuse. Further to it, the regression in the post Roman period was highly regional. Roman learning and
technology persevered in a variety of places.
The claims of the Book of Mormon as historical do not even meet the criteria you lay out above.
PS: Where are the remains of the horses, cattle, and Middle Eastern crops?
PPS:
"The Jaredites historical record far predates that of the Nephites and Lamanites - they got there first. And long before anyone else got there, they
killed themselves off. There is a land that was called the Land of Desolation by the Nephites and Lamanites where they found nothing but utter ruin - the
remains of a battle where even the women and children were given what weapons were available and made to fight."
And how does this statement invalidate the criticism? It does not address the key issue, that the remains of the battle, and the means to manufacture the
tools required to hold such a battle do not exist. (See Rome above.)
- Fidoohki - 11-10-2008
Anyway... anyone notice that 70% of blacks also voted for prop 8?
- robkelk - 11-10-2008
Fidoohki Wrote:Anyway... anyone notice that 70% of blacks also voted for prop 8?What does a person's skin colour have to do with how he or she votes?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Fidoohki - 11-10-2008
Nothing to be honest but it's one of those wierd facts that comes out. It also distracts from
the holy war this thread is turning into
- Morganite - 11-10-2008
That'd be the question, wouldn't it?
That's 18% or so higher than the total percentage. This suggests that there is some factor influencing them to vote yes that is not as large an influence
on other groups. (Or perhaps some factor inducing other groups to vote no is absent, or some more involved situation.) Finding out what this factor is might be
interesting.
The logic works the same for pretty much any subgroup that doesn't directly align it's members with one position or the other. (One suspects that the
population of homosexuals who have or want to get married is pretty close to 100% voting no, and the reasons why are obvious, therefore uninteresting.)
What might make this particular group interesting is that there *is* no inherent reason why a person's skin color should influence how they vote.
-Morgan.
- Lordpanther14 - 11-10-2008
Rev, as to the statistics that you quoted about the problems that Utah faces, who says that this is being done by LDS members, especially what said this was
said that this is being done by Temple going members. I'm not saying we're perfect but I don't think we're causing people to commit rape
because we teach that you shouldn't have sex till your married. I don't think we're teaching people they can't be sad so they should take
anti-depressants. As for the history stuff, it stated that iron was found pre-Colombian, which M Fnord said there was no evidence. I was just trying to say
that you can't say something didn't happen because we have no solid evidence of it. Archaeologists are consistently digging up more information,
who's to say that tomorrow that they won't find some horse bones, any of those other animals, or a cistern. Will that automatically make me right and
the Book of Mormon true? No, because some other unproven historical fact will be focused on or the find will be disputed and people will keep saying the record
can not be true. That's what happens when dealing with a history that is thousands of years old. In the end it has to come down to a matter of faith.
As a missionary I would meet plenty of people that would tell us we were wrong and perpetuating a false religion and I would ask, "Do you believe in God?
Do you believe that he loves us just as much as in the time of the Bible? Do you believe that he could call prophets and apostles just as he did in the time
of the Bible? That's the main message after all, that God is still revealing knowledge and guidance to us. If you don't believe it then why do you
try to prove it wrong? The only real purpose for that is to validate your own choices as being right and those who went down the other path as being
hopelessly lost delusional cowards who can't face reality."
I follow the 11th Article of Faith in my church, We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the d ictates of our own conscience, and allow
all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. As for the hedging my bets, what can I say I am a little bit silly. I've even
been saved by the Baptists, maybe by the Methodists as well, I'm a little unsure of their requirements for salvation. If other religions had such an
absentee method, I wouldn't mind. They can not steal my soul and force it to go somewhere else. Where I go is completely between me and my God. I just
think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is my best bet with the biggest pay off. This way I get to be a Joint-heir with Christ(Romans 8:16) and
have the chance to become like my Heavenly Father.
As to skin color affecting how we vote, anyone who does that is a racist. I don't vote a certain way because I'm white, but because of certain values I
have.
A rebuttal - Rev Dark - 11-10-2008
Panther noted
Quote: "As for the history stuff, it stated that iron was found pre-Colombian, which M Fnord said there was no evidence. I was just trying to say that you
can't say something didn't happen because we have no solid evidence of it. Archaeologists are consistently digging up more information, who's to
say that tomorrow that they won't find some horse bones, any of those other animals, or a cistern. Will that automatically make me right and the Book of
Mormon true? No, because some other unproven historical fact will be focused on or the find will be disputed and people will keep saying the record can not
be true. That's what happens when dealing with a history that is thousands of years old. In the end it has to come down to a matter of faith. "
No it does not have to come down to faith. It comes down to evidence. Given the fantastic claims made in the Book of Mormon, then the evidence should be
as obvious as a 12 doughnut carrying erection at a nudist colony. We are not talking about a lost colony of a few warm bodies. We are speaking to the
multitudes in their millions, with a metal-working society, capable of architecture of a kind seen in the Middle East area. We are speaking of the herds of
animals required to support these societies. The mines and infrastructure required to supply them.
You can choose to believe as a matter of faith. You can choose to believe as a matter of French Cheeses. The lack of evidence for the book of Mormon is
legion, the evidence directly against it is even greater. To believe in it is a deliberate ignorance, akin to a flat earth, or young earth creation.
So let us look at the questions you put forward as a missionary.
Do you believe in God?
No. God, all gods are creations of mankind.
Do you believe that he loves us just as much as in the time of the Bible?
No. And if you actually read the bible you will see behavior more in line with that of an abusive, violent, mentally disturbed spouse, and not a loving
supportive partner.
Do you believe that he could call prophets and apostles just as he did in the time of the Bible?
No, there is no evidence of his existence, but there have always been shameless hucksters and charlatans ready to lie to the benefit of themselves. They
can lay claim to the words of whatever god is in favour of the moment. Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed, Rael, Applewhite, Aum Shinrikyo, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,
Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sabbatai Zevi, Aleister Crowley... I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Quote: That's the main message after all, that God is still revealing knowledge and guidance to us.
No. First you have to establish the existence of the god. Then you have to demonstrate that the god in question supports your faith, and has passed on the
appropriate message, and you have understood it. Whether that be the Abramaic god, the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, or Bert the Magic
Penguin.
Quote: "If you don't believe it then why do you try to prove it wrong?
Because belief without evidence is dangerous. Especially when that belief is, as described in the ficition of the Book of Mormon, bat shit crazy. No
crazier than Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or several of the others I listed above (with far more similarities than is comfortable for the faithful to
consider.)
Quote: The only real purpose for that is to validate your own choices as being right and those who went down the other path as being hopelessly lost delusional
cowards who can't face reality.
Someone has to tell you that the earth is not flat. Sorry to tread on your belief.
Quote:
"I just think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is my best bet with the biggest pay off. This way I get to be a Joint-heir with
Christ(Romans 8:16) and have the chance to become like my Heavenly Father. "
What a terrible reason for being 'good'. Not for want of bettering mankind. Not for want of being of greatest benefit to your fellows? Just the
biggest bang for your celestial, eternal, buck. Don't feel bad, the selfish god ideal and schadenfreude of the afterlife is common in many faiths, but
Smith did steal his ideas from excellent sources.
Quote: "As to skin color affecting how we vote, anyone who does that is a racist. I don't vote a certain way because I'm white, but because of certain
values I have."
So when were blacks allowed to become full priests in the Mormon faith? June 8th, 1978. Curse of Cain and all of that. A great step forward indeed; glad
to see that the changing social zeitgeist finally caught up with them. With any luck gays and lesbians will be welcome with open orifices at around August 23,
2034.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
- Lordpanther14 - 11-11-2008
So I have a question for you. If you were in the time when everyone was saying the world was flat, would you agree with them or would you take a chance on
that oddball Christopher Columbus who says its round? When Gallileo was talking about the earth revolving around the sun instead of the sun revolving around
the earth who would you believe? When Darwin was killed by the Catholics because they thought the theory of evolution disproved the theory of creationism, who
would you side with? (I admit Darwin probably isn't the best example considering you already said you don't believe in God but he was one of those
world changing figures) So why can't I believe another revolutionary figure, Joseph Smith Jr. has come forward to change the world just as drasticly? As
for the evidence for a lost civilization. Do you believe in El Dorado? Atlantis? Or are they myths and legends? Lies told to children like Santa's Worksop
at the North Pole? How were the heads put up on Easter Island and who did it? Why did they do it? There are still mysteries in the world and I refuse to
believe that we already know everything that has ever happened on this planet.
In response to the animals, well species also go extinct, we've proven that pretty well with the carrier pigeon. I once heard that if we stopped caring
for our domestic animals that most would die out, unable to fend for themselves and becoming prey for the wild animals. Could been what happened to their
beasts, don't know, don't care. You may view me as the guy who's saying the world is flat but I see you much the same. If belief without evidence
is crazy then must I only believe what I have seen, heard, felt, tasted, and smelled? I have never been to France. Should I not believe in it? Well other
people have been there, there are pictures? Despite the same evidence existing for U.S. astronauts walking on the moon, some people still don't believe
that happened. There is mountains of evidence that the Holocaust happened but some people don't believe in that either. Some people believe that there
was a second gun man that shot John F. Kennedy. That 9/11 was an inside job. The conspiracy theories go on and on. Some of it causing people to act in
violent ways. Some people believe that socialism will solve all the world's problems. Some people believe that government is the cause of all the
problems the world faces. My belief has led me to commit acts of charity and service to friends and complete strangers. I did good deeds and if my motivation
was selfish does it invalidate the good I did? If I gave twenty dollars to a bum on the on-ramp of the freeway, knowing that nothing would ever come of it,
would that make my actions more noble? If I helped a friend move, knowing that I would never hear from them again, am I more righteous? Maybe, but I'll
leave the verdict up to the judge and maybe I'll do enough good that I'll learn not to think about myself. I'm not perfect yet, got to work
towards something. : ) Still I fail to see how the, as you put it 'bat shit crazy ideas' taught to me from the Book of Mormon and the Bible, are
dangerous to myself or to others and why you must try to disprove them. Why I can't take someone else's word that God exists or that I can't have
had an experience that proves it myself. Belief without evidence may be dangerous but what criteria do you use to validate that evidence? You seem quick
enough to dismiss my evidence. Who do you trust to give you the right information? How do you tell if someone is telling the truth or the truth as they see
it? Since you don't have faith in God, do you have faith in your teachers? Your parents? Your friends?
The comment about not voting because of my race was more of response to Fidooki's statistic about 70% of blacks voting for Prop 8. Didn't have
anything to do with the religion. Much as I like a hijacked thread, I was trying to provide a way for the religion argument to go back into the background and
people to talk more about what the thread's really about.
I'm of the mind that such a statistic like that are inherently useless as it says little while revealing even less about why such a large group of people
would vote a certain way. I tend to consider it the same as statistics about how many people who are left-handed voted. I think polls based on people's
position in life, income and occupation, and what values they hold would be far more telling in why a certain demographic votes a certain way.
- khagler - 11-11-2008
Some little quibbles:
Nobody, Catholic or otherwise, killed Darwin. He died of old age. Likewise, the contsruction of the statues on Easter Island by Polynesian colonists is less
mysterious than you might think from popular entertainment. ;-)
I'd heard that Mormons believed that Jesus had been to North America, but I hadn't heard about the whole "lost civilization" angle--I figured
he was just supposed to have walked around talking to the people who were already there. Just goes to show, being overly specific in your religious writings
isn't a good idea...
That said, let's be fair to the author. Smith came up with that in the early 19th century, when archaeology was still quite primitive. He lived in Ohio,
and back then Americans still believed that the Mound Builders couldn't have been Indians. I'm not up on Mormon mythology, but I'll bet that if you
looked into it you'd find that Mormons back then were claiming the mounds were remains of the civilizations in their stories. Back then, they wouldn't
have had any reason to know differently.
Back for more? - Rev Dark - 11-11-2008
LordPanther Wrote
Quote: So I have a question for you. If you were in the time when everyone was saying the world was flat, would you agree with them or would you take a chance on
that oddball Christopher Columbus who says its round?
Were you home schooled?
No seriously. I have to ask. As the above question is pretty concerning, as it demonstrates
a very shaky grasp of the scientific method. Scientific consensus stands up until a better theory comes along.
The ancient Greeks has a pretty good idea the world was round, but Columbus generally is credited with demonstrating it - erroneously - the vikings got there
several centuries earlier... Part of the reason it took so sodding long was the insistence that the bible was perfect and as such its
claims of a flat earth were true.
Einstein was pretty sure about special relativity, but needed a particular celestial event in order to demonstrate his theory.
Quote: When Gallileo was talking about the earth revolving around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth who would you
believe?
As with above, you go with the evidence. The explanation that best fits the evidence. What
is more, anyone should be able to perform the experiments and get the same result. Again, part of the scientific method, which you seem,
pretty ignorant about.
Quote: When Darwin was killed by the Catholics because they thought the theory of evolution disproved the theory of creationism, who would you side with? (I admit
Darwin probably isn't the best example considering you already said you don't believe in God but he was one of those world changing figures)
Darwin was not killed by Catholics. He was not killed at all. Darwin is a great example,
because up the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, god was the best theory (a decidedly shitty theory to be sure) but the best theory.
Darwin demonstrated that no creator god was required to provide diversity of life.
Quote: So why can't I believe another revolutionary figure, Joseph Smith Jr. has come forward to change the world just as drasticly?
Well if we compare Darwin's work in let's say "The Origin of The Species" We see the basis for our understanding of
modern biology, the rudiments of a theory that provides us the answer to our origins, and an elegant explanation to the origins of the diversity of
life. Joseph Smith Junior wrote a laughingly transparent fake religious text (they are all fake, but his is particularly transparent,
and the process by which his religion started is well documented.)
Darwin's works forwarded our knowledge of where we actually come from. Smith's work did not, and can be
considered a step backward for human knowledge. He lied. Deliberately. Perhaps with the
best of intentions, but I doubt that. He was a huckster and a charlatan, springing from a region that was quite famous from
them. Again, look at the history of the burnt over district.
Quote: "As for the evidence for a lost civilization. Do you believe in El Dorado? Atlantis? Or are they myths and legends? Lies told to children like
Santa's Worksop at the North Pole? "
Without evidence no. You can site various potential sources for the Atlantis myth or that of El Dorado (or even
Santa Claus). Just like you can trace the history and origin of various religions and the changes wrought in their imaginary friends
over time.
Quote: How were the heads put up on Easter Island and who did it?
Native people and the mechanism is rather simple (if labour intensive).
Quote: Why did they do it? There are still mysteries in the world and I refuse to believe that we already know
everything that has ever happened on this planet.
Yes, but we solve mysteries by investigation, not by jamming our fingers in our ears and screaming out GodDidIt! GodDidIt!
GodDidIt! The moment you site god, any god as the explanation, you have explained nothing, as you do not have an explanation for
god.
Quote:
In response to the animals, well species also go extinct, we've proven that pretty well with the carrier pigeon
And the Dodo, Stellar's Sea Cow, etc. Yes. And we have relics of them in museums and can
even go to Mauritius (in the case of the dodo) and recover additional remains; they are part of the archaeological record. We have
separate written accounts of them from contemporary sources. We have no such record for the legions of animals noted in the Book of Mormon which did not exist
in Pre-Colombian north America. So your argument is invalidated utterly.
Quote: . I once heard that if we stopped caring for our domestic animals that most would die out, unable to fend for themselves and becoming prey for the wild
animals.
That's not the real reason, most have been selectively bred to the point where they are no longer naturally viable.
The modern Turkey has problems with fornication due to the increased thickness of the breast. Modern Milk cows produce so much
milk that if they are not milked regularly, unfortunate things happen.
Quote: Could been what happened to their beasts, don't know, don't care. You may view me as the guy who's saying the world is flat but I see you much
the same.
Don't know, don't care? You would rather wallow in ignorance than bring to bear your critical thinking skills on what is a rather
simple question. Shame on you Lord Panther. Shame on you.
So where are the bones? A civilization as large as the one the Book of Mormon survives, with metal working, vast
herds, etc. That would produce huge piles of trash, and the bones would be very, very, distinct.
Even a casual examination of the Book of Mormon suggests multiple way in which its veracity can be disproved. I
have demonstrated several already. Most pertaining to the nature of large metal working, temple building, agrarian societies and the
marks they leave on the territory they occupy.
Quote: If belief without evidence is crazy then must I only believe what I have seen, heard, felt, tasted, and smelled? I have never been to France. Should I not
believe in it?
You have the capacity to reproduce the France experiment should you choose to do so. Do so. Broaden your mind. I found my visit to Utah
very eye opening.
Quote: Well other people have been there, there are pictures? Despite the same evidence existing for U.S. astronauts walking on the moon, some people still
don't believe that happened.
Some people believe is a cosmic Jewish zombie who had to die for the sins of Rib-man and snake woman. That does not
make it true. Preponderance of evidence and the nature of collusion make such claims rather silly.
Quote: There is mountains of evidence that the Holocaust happened but some people don't believe in that either. Some people believe that
there was a second gun man that shot John F. Kennedy. That 9/11 was an inside job. The conspiracy theories go on and on. Some of it causing people to act in
violent ways. Some people believe that socialism will solve all the world's problems. Some people believe that government is the cause of all the
problems the world faces. My belief has led me to commit acts of charity and service to friends and complete strangers.
Funny. I have done, and continue to do the same for purely secular reasons and I didn't need an imaginary
friend to do so. Would you have committed those same acts of charity without your belief? Is belief necessary for
'good' acts? Obviously not.
Quote: I did good deeds and if my motivation was selfish does it invalidate the good I did? If I gave twenty dollars to a bum on the on-ramp
of the freeway, knowing that nothing would ever come of it, would that make my actions more noble? If I helped a friend move, knowing that I would never hear
from them again, am I more righteous? Maybe, but I'll leave the verdict up to the judge and maybe I'll do enough good that I'll learn not to
think about myself. I'm not perfect yet, got to work towards something. : ) Still I fail to see how the, as you put it 'bat shit crazy ideas'
taught to me from the Book of Mormon and the Bible, are dangerous to myself or to others and why you must try to disprove them.
We could start with the institutionalized racism and sexism in the Mormon church. Any women priests
yet? How about your church making it clear on the position of marriage for homosexual couples? Delibearately denying them happiness
because your imaginary friend, through the lying voices of the prophets disagree?
How about going on mission and convincing people that it is better to believe an obvious lie (the stories in the Book of Mormon) in the
face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Not teaching that the stories are allegorical; teaching a lesson, but insisting that they
are true.
That is not a good act. Not even close.
Quote: Why I can't take someone else's word that God exists or that I can't have had an experience that proves it myself.
Any experiment should be repeatable by anyone. To use your own example, you can go to France.
Was it god or mental illness? Or an emotional need? Or just a fucking lie to get laid?
Quote: Belief without evidence may be dangerous but what criteria do you use to validate that evidence? You seem quick enough to dismiss my evidence.
Sorry Panther, you have not actually given any evidence yet. What is your evidence for the truth of the Book of
Mormon? Or the existence of god? If you can come up with a means to actually prove the existence of god you will win the Nobel prize; but I am not holding my
breath.
Quote: Who do you trust to give you the right information? How do you tell if someone is telling the truth or the truth
as they see it? Since you don't have faith in God, do you have faith in your teachers? Your parents? Your friends?
I trust in the current consensus in science. Which is nice as it has a mechanism for self correction that does not
require the current Prophet of Church to have yet another self-serving revelation (see the Satanic verses of the Koran, or much of the Book of Mormon, or even
recent 'revelations' your own church.)
I trust my own experience. I trust, but I verify. I have the means to check out most claims,
and if not, I can draw on published, peer reviewed papers for additional information.
Quote: The comment about not voting because of my race was more of response to Fidooki's statistic about 70% of blacks voting for Prop 8. Didn't have
anything to do with the religion.
I thought your comments on racism, while excellent in spirit, were neatly contrasted by your church's very recent history of
institutionalized racism and deserved to be highlighted.
.
Cheers,
Shayne
- Bob Schroeck - 11-11-2008
Quote: That said, let's be fair to the author. Smith came up with that in the early 19th century, when archaeology was still quite primitive.I don't have the time to do a proper lookup and citation right now, but I seem to recall that there was also a popular novel out shortly
before he claimed to have found the golden plates which bore a suspicious resemblance to the "scriptures" that were supposed to have been on them.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Rev Dark - 11-11-2008
Bob there are a whole bunch of them. Views of the Hebrews (Ethan Smith), the King James Bible (with translation errors intact no less), mixed with his
anti-masonic tendancies, and love of fucking other peoples wives. There is also the less supporting Spalding theory. The region that spawned mormonism also
rang richly with Millerites, the Fox Sisters, Shakers, Oneida Society, etc. Check out the works of Whitney Cross and Fawn Brodie.
The contemporary accounts are rather damning to Joe Smith's fictional crap-fest.
But that should be, and is, obvious by actually reading it.
Cheer,
Shayne
- ECSNorway - 11-11-2008
Quote:No seriously. I have to ask. As the above question is pretty concerning, as it demonstrates a very shaky grasp of the scientific method. Scientific consensus stands up until a better theory comes along. The ancient Greeks has a pretty good idea the world was round, but Columbus generally is credited with demonstrating it - erroneously - the vikings got there several centuries earlier... Part of the reason it took so sodding long was the insistence that the bible was perfect and as such its claims of a flat earth were true.
Actually, the reason that most of Queen Isabella's advisers told her Columbus wouldn't get anywhere was not that they thought the world was flat. It was that they knew it was round, had a fairly good idea of how big it was, and didn't know that there was this whacking great continent in the middle of all that empty ocean between them and China. From their point of view, it was just too far to go. Columbus managed to sell Isabella on the idea that the distance was a lot less, and got her to fund his trip.
Hell, he may well have known about the Viking colonies and figured, based on their distance, that they -had- to have found the northern coast of China, so the mathematically-known distance had to be wrong...
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Rev Dark - 11-11-2008
Yes and Columubus used the wrong tranlation for the mile and ended up calculating a 75% shorter distance than it actually was.
As I said, part of the reason, and by no means the whole story. Remember this took place even before The heliocentric solar system was championed by
Galileo (and smacked down by the chruch.). Do not underestimate the clerical influence of the time on matters pertaining to science. Yes, you can pull out
flat earthers and spherical earthers from the history of the Christian church from Aquinas to Tertulian and find varying answers as to the shape.
Great point though.
Cheers,
Shayne
Cheers,
Shayne
- ECSNorway - 11-12-2008
Speaking of fanatics, I'm now waiting for someone to connect the Revelations verse about the world being placed under the dominion of Satan in the End
Times, with the timing of Obama's term ending in 2012 - the same year as the Mayan-Calendar apocalypse...
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Morganite - 11-12-2008
*Looks over at her Shadowrun rulebooks*
Hmmm.
-Morgan.
- ECSNorway - 11-13-2008
Oh, and Rev, since you're so hot up on the subject... I'd like to quote from a Republican, Bush-appointee judge's recent ruling on the matter of Intelligent Design:
Quote:After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- khagler - 11-13-2008
Quote: ECSNorway wrote:
Speaking of fanatics, I'm now waiting for someone to connect the Revelations verse about the world being placed under the dominion of Satan in the End
Times, with the timing of Obama's term ending in 2012 - the same year as the Mayan-Calendar apocalypse...
Give it time. I remember reading posts various places that suggested, apparently seriously, that Bush was the anti-christ. And Republican fanatics are
generally way more religion-obsessed...
- Rev Dark - 11-13-2008
Yes ECS it is Judge Jones from the Dover trial. I am quite familiar with the ruling.
If you want the real fun, read what the shitweasels at the Discovery Institute had to say about him before the trial, and then what they had to say about him
after it.
That sir, is real entertainment.
http://ncseweb.org/creati...to-swift-boat-judge-jones
You can also compare his remarks to those of Palin concerning Intelligent Design.
Teach the controversy my hairy Canadian arse.
Cheers,
Shayne