Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Because there’s literally no thought behind it.Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:09 pmYes indeed. Why not?Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:29 pmSo, we’re taking A.I.-generated texts seriously enough to start threads on now?
drumdude, I think you have made a good focus for the problem here. I think the LDS system of belief is a bit more fragile than some others. It rests to a significant degree on the special authority of a few people which creates authority for what they have taught. Of course any religious group is going to have limits on what can fit. If you believe Jesus was a fake prophet you do not really fit in a Christian church.drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:05 pmI go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I think all religions can benefit from a moderating trend. Catholics aren’t burning heretics anymore. Muslims, by and large, aren’t massacring infidels. Mormons should some day stop excommunicating doubters and critics.
But DCP often pushes back on this, and I think he’s also correct. If you don’t believe the prophets are genuine, if you don’t think the Book of Mormon is real history, if you don’t believe literally then what are you doing in his church? Are you just there to subtly undermine the true believer’s hard fought worldview? A world view they think is as objectively true as anything in their lives is true?
It’s a difficult thing to navigate. It has the power to transform the religion for the better but also to bring down those who want the church to stay how it is now. Why should their church have to change to suit the more progressive views of others? Is that fair to them? And in their worldview it’s a path to apostasy that they must oppose at all costs.
At the end of the day, if God doesn’t allow good people into heaven based solely on one’s position around doctrinal squabbles, is he really the God we think he is?huckelberry wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 6:02 pmdrumdude, I think you have made a good focus for the problem here. I think the LDS system of belief is a bit more fragile than some others. It rests to a significant degree on the special authority of a few people which creates authority for what they have taught. Of course any religious group is going to have limits on what can fit. If you believe Jesus was a fake prophet you do not really fit in a Christian church.drumdude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:05 pmI go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I think all religions can benefit from a moderating trend. Catholics aren’t burning heretics anymore. Muslims, by and large, aren’t massacring infidels. Mormons should some day stop excommunicating doubters and critics.
But DCP often pushes back on this, and I think he’s also correct. If you don’t believe the prophets are genuine, if you don’t think the Book of Mormon is real history, if you don’t believe literally then what are you doing in his church? Are you just there to subtly undermine the true believer’s hard fought worldview? A world view they think is as objectively true as anything in their lives is true?
It’s a difficult thing to navigate. It has the power to transform the religion for the better but also to bring down those who want the church to stay how it is now. Why should their church have to change to suit the more progressive views of others? Is that fair to them? And in their worldview it’s a path to apostasy that they must oppose at all costs.
Still I am struck with the wide variety which happens within the Catholic church. I guess not always happily or comfortably but there nonetheless.
It's not about thought, it's about analyzing the logic of arguments and evidence.
So, you're content with a computer program spoon-feeding the logic of arguments and evidence to you?Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:00 pmIt's not about thought, it's about analyzing the logic of arguments and evidence.
This is how I currently feel about the chatbot AIs. They are impressively fluent, at least mostly, but if they are artificial intelligences, they are not artificially geniuses. Their products might earn a B grade from a generous grader; you'd have to be really harsh not to give them a C. They're not going to get A's, though. They waffle and ramble, saying the kinds of things that people say about the subject without showing the confident grasp that it takes to cut right to the key point, say it clearly, and stop.huckelberry wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:17 amThis A.I. sounds like a well oiled assemblage of common observations gleaned from a large bunch of sources. I may not really want to know how many opinions were reviewed to mulch into this one summary.
I realize a very large part of any humans’ statements about subjects of interest are like that. However, there is with a human source a particular experiential vantage point. And maybe some particular thoughts, maybe.
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:31 amSo, you're content with a computer program spoon-feeding the logic of arguments and evidence to you?Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:00 pmIt's not about thought, it's about analyzing the logic of arguments and evidence.
I'm sorry, I don't believe we've been properly introduc *poof*yellowstone123 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:43 pmSo is this a simulation? I'll keep my parents and sisters but everything else goes!