Evidence of God

[_Mercury]

It seems to be a cheap thing to want for things with no evidence, waiting for them to come around the corner. There has been nothing shown to me, and believe me I have looked, that gives me credible information that even a grain of an afterlife exists

.

Just look at yourself Mercury (Coffee), look at your attitude, at how you talk, how your express yourself, at your adolescent mocking at the sacred things of others. You've looked? Your flailing immaturity and vulgar manners are one thing. Insulting other's intelligence with a brazen whopper like that is quite another.

Out of the 6000+ years humans have been living togerhter in cities, Mormonism is a VERY insignificant portion of that experience.

So is, by that measure, your existence.

So...Molek, vishnu, Christ, elohim...they are all inventions given to us to create a boogieman/father figure to make humans bend their will towards supporting a priesthood. After governments came along by supporting the priesthood we had much of human history dictated by this alliance.

A very fine example of a very pure form of Korihorism. Ignorant, historically illiterate, and anti-intellectual to the very core.

Following the reformation and independence from the papacy western culture stopped with the nonsense of taxation supporting a church. But that emotional tie guilting us into believing that if we don't tithe we will go to hell, damning our eternal souls, is what is holding you back.

More Korihorism shaken not stirred. Actually, our taxes do support a religion known as the religion of Secular Humanism, its just that there aren't any formal services in that one (except perhaps, at the abortion clinic).

Once you realise that there is no eternity promised to you then you will be able to live a life free from false constructs emotionally gang raping you into submission.

Once one gets a serious and deep education and begins truly thinking in a critical and imaginative way, psychobable like this is as easy to spot as a dead Triceratops on Ventura Boulevard.

Aww, coggy boy, your breaking your vow to never talk to me again.

Look, I know your just venting because daddy didn't love you and mommy was too busy hitting the crack pipe to care. But those nice people from social services came and took you away from that, so that's in the past. Move on, let go of the anger and hate. i know you got kicked around alot at the group home, so learn from your experiences.

Get back on the drugs, ditch Mormonism and be the real you once again. You can do it! I believe in you!

[_marg]

They misunderstood if they thought I was going to 'prove it' to them. I thought I made that clear in the opening post.

What you said in your opening post in this thread is that you were asked to provide your personal experiences as evidence. But that is not what they asked you, in particular JAK.

Think of it this way. Suppose you went for a job interview and you mentioned your skills, your educational level and training, do you think you would have provided the company reliable evidence? Suppose you lied about everything? For evidence to have merit, be reliable, be useful there must be ways in which the company can objectively evaluate your claims. Otherwise whatever you say amount to assertions unsupported with evidence.

What JAK requested of you is evidence which has merit, which can be evaluated objectively independent of your assertions. Since you know your experiences are unverifiable to others, you know they have no merit except to yourself. So relating them is not evidence except to you. What you related was your experiences, not evidence for God. But it was evidence for God which was requested not your experiences.

JAK's dismissals of God do not seem to make much sense to me and if they followed his rules many of the great discoverers would never have made any headway. Galileo held to his theory despite the Copernican model having fewer abnormalities within it. Why? Gut feeling? Later it was found out he was right. Most new discoveries come about because a genius has a realization and in the face of all odds sets out to prove it.

JAK is open to information, reasoning and evidence which would support a "theory for god" but you haven't provided that evidence. Good critical thinking requires that one maintain a skeptical attitude open to new information and a willingness to change one's beliefs if warranted. This attitude is fundamental in the scientific method, no theory is absolute. All theories must be open to new information. But having an open skeptical mind does not mean one accept claims unsupported with evidence. JAK is asking you for evidence which can be objectively evaluated independent of you. Galileo used evidence and reason to support his theory. His evidence and reasoning could be objectively evaluated and verified. His theory offered predictive value which is verifiable. You offer nothing which can be objectively evaluated, nothing with predictive value which can be verified, nothing which is testable. So you do not offer evidence to warrant accepting your theory for God.

God is different from these things in that I do not set out to prove it; I set out to live it. The more I live it the more evidences pop out in my life like the ones I described. Those are also very peripheral ones. I left out the most concrete ones because I am a coward. I do not want them mocked because I worry this will lead me to become angry.

Your personal experiences which you say are evidence have no merit, are unreliable to those who would objectively evaluate them. It is pointless offering them as evidence for God. As JAK pointed out they are evidence of your state of mind. Your personal experiences offer no predictive value, are not reproducible, are not testable, are not consistent with others who have religious personal experiences hence they conflict with others. To those who would wish to objectively evaluate your theory for god your experiences amount to assertions with no basis in fact offered.

[_Coggins7]

Aww, coggy boy, your breaking your vow to never talk to me again.

Look, I know your just venting because daddy didn't love you and mommy was too busy hitting the crack pipe to care. But those nice people from social services came and took you away from that, so that's in the past. Move on, let go of the anger and hate. I know you got kicked around alot at the group home, so learn from your experiences.

Get back on the drugs, ditch Mormonism and be the real you once again. You can do it! I believe in you!

I rest my case with the individual above as with Scratch.

[_The Nehor]

Go take a look at most of Scratch's posts to me just over the last several weeks and then take him to task as you have me. What I have told you about this individual is something that anyone who has dealt with him even peripherally knows very well for himself. I have tried again and again to engage him in civil, critical debate and he simply will not. He is a poorly read, tendentious, half educated demagogue and intellectual poseur who's rabid bigotry and hatred of all things Mormon is only matched by his cutting polemical skills, which appear to be, as to any intellectual depth, the only real intellectual skills he has acquired during his lifetime. So please get off your goody-two-shoes spiritual throne and grow up. The man you are defending against me despises your religion, despises and mocks your spiritual experiences, and despises you for defending that religion. In time, you will learn, young Jedi.

I have defended you here on this thread in a philosophically substantive manner. Apparently, you choose to view me (most likely because of my views on the Iraq war) as your opponent. So be it. We need discuss nothing

I appreciate what you did for me. I do think Scratch can be harsh to you though I do not find him as abrasive as some others on the board.

To my knowledge though he does not profess to be bound by Christ's teachings. You do. I haven't been around long enough to see the beginning of your endless baiting and snide remarks so I can't say who started it. I'd like to think we've grown past playground rationalization though.

If it will make you feel better, yes, Scratch does engage in undercutting you, insulting you, and demeaning your points. However I just read you wrote that Scratch is a, "poorly read, tendentious, half educated demagogue and intellectual poseur who's rabid bigotry and hatred of all things Mormon is only matched by his cutting polemical skills, which appear to be, as to any intellectual depth, the only real intellectual skills he has acquired during his lifetime." What point does saying this serve for anyone? If this board is mostly a means of catharsis I would question my motives for being here. It's way too common on these boards.

I realize that Scratch opposes my religion. This is not a revelation to me. I have yet to see that he despises me for defending it or despises everything spiritual in my life. Even if that were true, does that give me license to become bitter and confrontational. This is not a war. I am not out to beat him or anyone else here. If this is growing up I think I understand why Christ told us to be like little children. I don't have a spiritual throne yet but I mean to get one. How bout you?

I don't view you as my opponent and I have many people I count as friends who disagree with me about the Iraq War. As I said there I was annoyed I got into a political thread. If I offended you while there I apologize.

If I think this board is turning me into something I hate (dogmatic, vicious, snide, and cutting) then I hope someone will tell me and I'll take a leave of absence.

[_Mercury]

Aww, coggy boy, your breaking your vow to never talk to me again.

Look, I know your just venting because daddy didn't love you and mommy was too busy hitting the crack pipe to care. But those nice people from social services came and took you away from that, so that's in the past. Move on, let go of the anger and hate. I know you got kicked around alot at the group home, so learn from your experiences.

Get back on the drugs, ditch Mormonism and be the real you once again. You can do it! I believe in you!

I rest my case with the individual above as with Scratch.

There you go responding again.

Old habits die hard, eh?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hi Nehor...

Perhaps the Dali Lama could. I for one would like to see the attempt.

LOL! After I posted this I thought to myself, yeah, the Dali Lama probably can tell how spiritual are LDS folks! ;-)

I agree that the limitations of my spiritual experiences have more to do with me than God. I don't think it's my beliefs so much as who and what I am that are holding me back though. I have not as of yet been invited in to see the visions of eternity. Maybe tomorrow :)

Can you see how the beliefs of others hold them back? Do you acknowledge that there are others with similarly strong, if not stronger beliefs than yours who feel equally or stronger than do you?

Do you see how, in others their beliefs directly affect who and what they are?

Do you realize that there are tons of folks who believe they have seen visions of eternity and few are similar to the LDS version?

You speak a lot about personal revelation as truth but I wonder how you can so easily dismiss all the other billions of spiritual "truths" taught and believed and experienced by billions of people.

I truly don't get this line of thinking. :-)

~dancer~

Rationally I can't explain their beliefs. I have experienced only one person's experiences: mine. I do realize that there are many other versions out there. I used to chalk theirs up to mysticism and while I still believe that explains the majority of them there are some I can not explain. I could fixate on this but I don't. I have no real information. I can't really compare spiritual experiences in any meaningful way.

Maybe many of what we call spiritual experiences aren't spiritual at all. Maybe they are caused by genes, hormones, irregularities of the brain, any number of things. Or perhaps they are strong insights or premonitions. Perhaps everything we are living out moment-by-moment has already happened and some people are able to tune into a spiritual dimension of past events. I do believe in spirit, and guidance from the spirit, but anything that has a basis in fear (any kind of vision of evil), or anything that takes the form of prophetic commandments or instruction for other people, or anything that supports the notion of a personal god, I would be very careful about believing it comes from spirit.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

(from apocryphal account) After Peter won a debate against the Gnostic Apostate Simon the people arose in a clamor ready to kill or beat Simon for his blasphemy and Peter calmed them down saying it was not their right to make such a decision. Simon was in God's hands and if he wanted Simon killed or beaten or humiliated or cast down he was perfectly capable of doing it himself and didn't need our help.

If Scratch or anyone else is your or my enemy (which I am not sure of) then we are under orders to do good to him. I remember no proviso in Christ's sermons that they only applied to those you like or those who do not actively oppose you. I now read the end of the Book of Mormon much differently than I used to. When the Nephites were engaged in their final wars they were convinced of the rightness of their cause and villified their enemies. They had no time to repent, there was a war on. They were the good guys, the lamanites were the bad guys. And in the beginning they might have been more good. However they let their hate and spite and vengefulness rule them and became equals in cruelty.

On my Mission I was what was known as a Bible-basher for some time. I was pretty good at it. I found though that it was turning me into a demagogue and crushing my ability to feel goodwill towards my fellow-man.

Go take a look at most of Scratch's posts to me just over the last several weeks and then take him to task as you have me. What I have told you about this individual is something that anyone who has dealt with him even peripherally knows very well for himself. I have tried again and again to engage him in civil, critical debate and he simply will not. He is a poorly read, tendentious, half educated demagogue and intellectual poseur who's rabid bigotry and hatred of all things Mormon is only matched by his cutting polemical skills, which appear to be, as to any intellectual depth, the only real intellectual skills he has acquired during his lifetime. So please get off your goody-two-shoes spiritual throne and grow up. The man you are defending against me despises your religion, despises and mocks your spiritual experiences, and despises you for defending that religion. In time, you will learn, young Jedi.

I have defended you here on this thread in a philosophically substantive manner. Apparently, you choose to view me (most likely because of my views on the Iraq war) as your opponent. So be it. We need discuss nothing

Sheesh, Coggins, what are you getting out of all this? When it comes to being rude, crude and impolite, you have no room to criticize anybody. What possible reason can you have for trying to stir up animosity in Nehor? As far as I can see, his beliefs are perfectly sincere and his tolerance of Scratch & Company, and his ability to keep a sense of humor about it all, is far more consistent with the kind of Mormon I was taught to be than the type of Mormon you are.

[_Coggins7]

If this board is mostly a means of catharsis I would question my motives for being here.

No need to question your motives, but you know, this statement rings clear and true, and I just realized it. For most of the anti-Mormons and exmos here, this board, and others like it, is a means of catharsis and an amplifier of the same. That's why probably 90% of the dialog here ends up the way it does.

As to your other comments, yes, as I am LDS I shouldn't do what Scratch does. I'm also human, and after being called a racist, a bigot, a moron, and a hick enough times, I will eventually strike back. I've ended conversations with Scratch on several occasions, intending never to speak with him again precisely because of this. I always seem to get sucked back into discussions, however, because of the fantastic claims and theories he supports and particularly, the slander that pours forth about the Brethren.

This is why I've been limiting my posting to just a few days out of the week. I can't take this place every day and it eats up valuable time that I could use writing, studying, or working in my garden. I just read a talk in the Conference issue tonight by Jeffry Holland about the power and importance of words, and I think your right.

Back to square one. There are just certain people I'm not going to discuss things with any more. Nothing good or productive can come of it. I come to places like this to discuss and to debate, because good debate makes me think about my own beliefs in ways I might not have under normal circumstances, and moves me to analyze and hone my own thoughts and arguments and gives me a better and more polished understanding of my own beliefs. That's the best kind of debate. The kind that goes on here, on the other hand, with few exceptions, is, well, another kind.

[_Jersey Girl]

If this board is mostly a means of catharsis I would question my motives for being here.

No need to question your motives, but you know, this statement rings clear and true, and I just realized it. For most of the anti-Mormons and exmos here, this board, and others like it, is a means of catharsis and an amplifier of the same. That's why probably 90% of the dialog here ends up the way it does.

As to your other comments, yes, as I am LDS I shouldn't do what Scratch does. I'm also human, and after being called a racist, a bigot, a moron, and a hick enough times, I will eventually strike back. I've ended conversations with Scratch on several occasions, intending never to speak with him again precisely because of this. I always seem to get sucked back into discussions, however, because of the fantastic claims and theories he supports and particularly, the slander that pours forth about the Brethren.

This is why I've been limiting my posting to just a few days out of the week. I can't take this place every day and it eats up valuable time that I could use writing, studying, or working in my garden. I just read a talk in the Conference issue tonight by Jeffry Holland about the power and importance of words, and I think your right.

Back to square one. There are just certain people I'm not going to discuss things with any more. Nothing good or productive can come of it. I come to places like this to discuss and to debate, because good debate makes me think about my own beliefs in ways I might not have under normal circumstances, and moves me to analyze and hone my own thoughts and arguments and gives me a better and more polished understanding of my own beliefs. That's the best kind of debate. The kind that goes on here, on the other hand, with few exceptions, is, well, another kind.

What's bothering me most about this is that when I'm reading various threads, I have to wade through a series of gratuitous slams in order to get to the relevant posts. I'm mulling over becoming more proactive about that. Don't ask me what that means, because I won't say.

Jersey Girl

[_Mister Scratch]

As to your other comments, yes, as I am LDS I shouldn't do what Scratch does.

I think what Nehor is saying is that you should take responsibility for your own behavior.

I'm also human, and after being called a racist, a bigot, a moron, and a hick enough times, I will eventually strike back.

Right. Just like others will strike back after being called, "typical, typical liberal," "lacking in intellectual and philosophical seriousness," "adolescent," etc., etc. What goes around comes around. I have told you this many, many times.

I've ended conversations with Scratch on several occasions, intending never to speak with him again precisely because of this. I always seem to get sucked back into discussions,

That is because you are weak, and because you are a liar at heart.

however, because of the fantastic claims and theories he supports and particularly, the slander that pours forth about the Brethren.

Nothing I have ever said regarding the Church is slander. In fact, the area of discussion in which I have most dominated you happens to be Church-related topics.