Re: Gemli explains...
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:46 pm
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Rivendale, I think theists understand themselves to be believing for reasons that are important to them though they are not incontrovertible. I gather you are stating that believing probably takes place first before people think about whether they should believe. I think that takes place sometimes perhaps particularly with children and people not inclined to question.(I know they exist but I do not understand them very well)Rivendale wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:39 pmThis is where theists plant their flag. I believe because I believe but there are zero methodologies that can dispute me so I am cool with it.I believe things that are not implied by any incontrovertible evidence, that's true, but I don't think I believe anything that is inconsistent with any incontrovertible evidence.
aRivendale wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:33 pmIt is circular. You have to believe before you believe. And if you think you're sincere and take the promise; yet get no validation you are not a master of your sincerity. Ultimately you can't choose your beliefs any more than you can choose to breath under water.
I agree that a belief is substantiated by the believer but out of their control. I don't think you can choose a belief. You are convinced for a myriad of reasons both good and bad. I think most of the sifting occurs subconsciously. Empirical evidence can feed into this decision making process but most theist I know base their beliefs on emotional feedback loops that need weekly if not daily recharging., I think theists understand themselves to be believing for reasons that are important to them though they are not incontrovertible. I gather you are stating that believing probably takes place first before people think about whether they should believe. I think that takes place sometimes perhaps particularly with children and people not inclined to question.(I know they exist but I do not understand them very well)
Mormonism is unique among NRMs as it is founded explicitly upon a hoax. JW's, in contrast, are grounded in pure vanilla, digging into Hebrew commentaries and reading Bible passages as literally as they can based on what the commentaries say, even if that means throwing out centuries of tradition. Whether they do a good job isn't my concern for this post. The underlying method is mundane in contrast to visions and angels.Physics Guy wrote:Some Mormons have surely distilled some good things out of Joseph Smith's scam, and I can believe that an enlightened form of Mormonism might be as wise as any religion—perhaps all the more so for recognizing weaknesses in its founder. I'm not inclined to defend conservative Mormon apologetics.
Gemli
Boston
AGE:
66
OCCUPATION:
Computer Analyst
FAVORITE ISSUES:
Fact-based public policy, climate change, inequality
Gemli, who asked that his real name not be used, is by some analytical measures the most popular commenter on The Times’s site.
He averages 354 reader recommendations per comment. There has to be some trick to this, right?
“The first sentence of the comment is key, and it’s usually the hardest to write,” Gemli said. “I can spend a half-hour writing and rewriting the first line.”
“Reading conservative pundits usually gets my goat, especially when they’re denying climate change, or recommending the continuation of economic inequality,” he said. “When they inject theology into public policy I have been known to write a mildly-worded rebuttal or two, after my left eye stops twitching and I regain my composure.”
Education occurs when you’re exposed to the world, and shielding yourself from it means that you’re not receiving an education. If there are things that you find too sensitive to bear, then you shouldn’t attend that meeting or take that course. Stay at home, in your room, with the windows shut and the TV off.
– Gemli
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... nters.html
"It's not that I don't know enough about Mormonism. It's that the miraculous details of all religions are of a piece, generally consisting of sworn attestations of things that violate our integrity as rational, thinking beings while leaving no other evidence. It becomes a virtue to believe without evidence, which we call "faith," but then it's claimed that, by the way, there's lots of evidence. Otherwise we'd have to admit that groups of people will sometimes swear to things that aren't true.
Well, people swore to the miracles performed by Sathya Sai Baba, who turned magic tricks into a following of millions. Scientology, a truly made-up-for-profit religion, still has thousands of sad dupes on the rolls. Under the right circumstance, people will believe anything.
It seems that the truth of religion is to be found in the psychology of belief. This is especially true regarding beliefs that cement social groups together and create tribal identities. It's extremely difficult to extricate oneself from a culture that indoctrinates children into the prevailing religion, and whose self-worth and societal acceptance is tied to depth of belief. Most kids so raised don't have a chance. Intelligence is no defense. On the contrary, smart believers are capable of weaving more complex nets of justification and clever apologies that make doubt, which should be our most cherished condition, almost impossible to achieve."
Who is this gemli? Come join us over here, my friend!
Wow, thank you, Rivendale. I didn't know gemli's comments on SeN went that far back. What a great find!Rivendale wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:44 pmThe New York Times description of Gemli occurs at about the same time as this reddit post titled "Probably the best comment ever on Dan Peterson's blog post" by fearless fixer. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/co ... _a_dan/
"It's not that I don't know enough about Mormonism. It's that the miraculous details of all religions are of a piece, generally consisting of sworn attestations of things that violate our integrity as rational, thinking beings while leaving no other evidence. It becomes a virtue to believe without evidence, which we call "faith," but then it's claimed that, by the way, there's lots of evidence. Otherwise we'd have to admit that groups of people will sometimes swear to things that aren't true.
Well, people swore to the miracles performed by Sathya Sai Baba, who turned magic tricks into a following of millions. Scientology, a truly made-up-for-profit religion, still has thousands of sad dupes on the rolls. Under the right circumstance, people will believe anything.
It seems that the truth of religion is to be found in the psychology of belief. This is especially true regarding beliefs that cement social groups together and create tribal identities. It's extremely difficult to extricate oneself from a culture that indoctrinates children into the prevailing religion, and whose self-worth and societal acceptance is tied to depth of belief. Most kids so raised don't have a chance. Intelligence is no defense. On the contrary, smart believers are capable of weaving more complex nets of justification and clever apologies that make doubt, which should be our most cherished condition, almost impossible to achieve."
Who is this gemli? Come join us over here, my friend!
That’s an unfortunate recent change. And it doesn’t appear to be limited to DCP’s blog.
I think you're completely right, Scientology is a clear tick beyond Mormonism. I give Mormonism a lot more credit than Scientology for being a genuine religion that exists for much the same reasons that any other religion exists. I don't think my brother counts Scientology as a religion at all; I haven't discussed this point with him because it wouldn't interest him.Moksha wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 11:23 pmYou might point out to your brother that Xenu dropping atomic bombs in volcanos was a pretty far-out idea.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:06 pmOne of my brothers has described Mormonism as "the most obviously made-up religion". My liberal approach to religions makes me want to defend most religions as having at least some amount of good insight, but I haven't been able to argue against my brother on this one.