What has happened to the God of love?

[_The Nehor]

Never mind JAK. My religious beliefs will never be established by transparent, objective evidence leading to a general consensus among all rational beings. It was never meant to and you will accept nothing less. We have no common ground on which to have a dialogue.

[_JAK]

Never mind JAK. My religious beliefs will never be established by transparent, objective evidence leading to a general consensus among all rational beings. It was never meant to and you will accept nothing less. We have no common ground on which to have a dialogue.

And I observed as much previously regarding your religious myths. You prefer ancient or you own invented myths as opposed to transparent, scientific inquiry. Yet you also prefer all the benefits of science and even discredit science in favor of such myths as God did it and I talk to God and God talks to me, and I believe, I believe in spite of evidence and rational explanations for events, your own emotions, and wishful thinking.

You are incorrect in “no common ground.” We are having a discussion via the application of science. Absent the Internet and computers, it’s highly unlikely that we would ever have had any conversation.

It’s not that there is absence of “common ground.” Do you drive a car? Do you see a doctor? Do you ever think about what is a best solution to a problem? I expect you do.

Our exchange on the Internet is evidence that we have some "common ground."

But you default to how you have been indoctrinated from cradle up. Further, you appear incapable of recognizing the many religious myths, all of which tend to claim their view is right.

You, Nehor, are an example of one so well indoctrinated that you remain oblivious to the fact.

You appear incapable of addressing clear conflict between what we know (or can know) with confirmation/evidence and your own blind belief.

I have attempted to persuade you to be intellectually honest and address analysis and questions directed to your comments.

It is you who have refused to engage in that honest dialogue. Perhaps “refused” is not quite the correct word. You are sufficiently damaged academically that you are incapable of presenting more than claim piled upon claim void of Twenty-first Century rational thought.

Did you see the Space Shuttle come to earth today from the space station?

Television -- an innovation of applied science.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

And I observed as much previously regarding your religious myths. You prefer ancient or you own invented myths as opposed to transparent, scientific inquiry. Yet you also prefer all the benefits of science and even discredit science in favor of such myths as God did it and I talk to God and God talks to me, and I believe, I believe in spite of evidence and rational explanations for events, your own emotions, and wishful thinking.

You are incorrect in “no common ground.” We are having a discussion via the application of science. Absent the Internet and computers, it’s highly unlikely that we would ever have had any conversation.

It’s not that there is absence of “common ground.” Do you drive a car? Do you see a doctor? Do you ever think about what is a best solution to a problem? I expect you do.

Our exchange on the Internet is evidence that we have some "common ground."

But you default to how you have been indoctrinated from cradle up. Further, you appear incapable of recognizing the many religious myths, all of which tend to claim their view is right.

You, Nehor, are an example of one so well indoctrinated that you remain oblivious to the fact.

You appear incapable of addressing clear conflict between what we know (or can know) with confirmation/evidence and your own blind belief.

I have attempted to persuade you to be intellectually honest and address analysis and questions directed to your comments.

It is you who have refused to engage in that honest dialogue. Perhaps “refused” is not quite the correct word. You are sufficiently damaged academically that you are incapable of presenting more than claim piled upon claim void of Twenty-first Century rational thought.

Did you see the Space Shuttle come to earth today from the space station?

Television -- an innovation of applied science.

JAK

Well, I'd prefer our common ground to be the power of the Holy Ghost but it looks like that is not going to happen.

That we share a medium of communication is not evidence that we are using the same tools of analysis. I use the same toolset you're referring to in my life. I also have a different method that I use to acquire facts and truth. You seem to have never experienced it and thus decry it as useless.

I'm not the science cheerleader you seem to be and don't see it as the be all and end all of my perception of reality. Applied science has created some amazing things. There are many things it can not explain, the main one being, "Why?" at the most fundamental level.

Funny you should say I'm academically damaged since your manner of conversation matches that of two people I know. One has Asperger's and the other is schizophrenic. I thought it wouldn't be polite to make the comparison but I thought it would make a nice counterpoint to your continual claims that I'm mentally defective.

Yes, I do make lots and lots of claims. Try them out if you want to find the same things. If you have to wait for the scientific community of the Twenty-First Century (who you seem much more impressed by than I am) to come to a general consensus with full evidence before you take any action in life you must not live a very full life.

[_JAK]

Nehor,

An interesting difference in our interaction. I generally quote you directly and verbatim. Then I respond to your words.

While you quoted, your response did not and has not addressed directly questions or analysis presented and to which you could have responded.

Consider your first line after quoting my entire last post.

Nehor state:
Well, I'd prefer our common ground to be the power of the Holy Ghost but it looks like that is not going to happen.

No evidence for your claims of “Holy Ghost.”
Analysis:
The term was invented at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. A divide between East and West branches of Christianity produced a disagreement on the various claims for the invention “Holy Ghost” (later called “Holy Spirit.”

The Eastern church held the invention from one source and the Western church held the invention from another. There is a historical record on this particular piece of religious mythology.

Keep in mind Trinity was invented in this time frame when the marketing of Christianity was undertaken by Constintine the Great. (Or do you ignore documented history you wish to ignore?)

It’s a doctrine of religious myth. It is not shared by all Christians and is not a specific myth of any other world religion.

No evidence supports the efficaciousness of such myths.

Consider the millions who prayed for the rescue of the six miners.
Consider the three rescue workers who died in the rescue attempt.
Consider that people’s attempt to manipulate God or any other invented deity appears to have failed.

Consider the absence of reliability and impotence of the mythological “Holy Ghost.”

Now consider the reliability of the polio vaccine in preventing that disease. Consider the reliability of gravity.

Nehor, if you were sick, would you go to a doctor? If so, why?

Why not rely on your claimed power of “Holy Ghost”?
Without question, superstition is a continuing aspect of human notions. It’s understandable considering that humans come from a long history of superstition. The formulation of religious myths is an extension of superstition.

Christian Scientists (which are anti science) would pray only (no doctors, no hospitals, no vaccinations) for health in the face of disease or illness. Their prayer has a poor track record (it’s irrelevant). In addition, some have had their children removed from them charged with child endangerment for failure to seek medical science. Children have died from a burst appendix while their parents prayed for God to heal their sick child.

No hospital, no doctor, no medical science which would have saved their child -- just the power of prayer.

Perhaps their perception of God is at least a somewhat different myth than yours.

There is not the slightest evidence for the invention to which you accredit “power.” Coincidence of events or experience is insufficient to establish reliability

Some pray and consider success as things turn out as they wish. No evidence that they manipulated an invented deity. Others pray and things do not turn out as they wish. (The families of the six miners in Utah)

If you really believed as you claim “power of Holy Ghost,” you would avoid health care which involves medical science. I’m skeptical you’re sincere in that. My guess is that you stop at stop lights rather than relying on “Holy Ghost” to get you through.

My guess is that you want all the benefits of science while giving little or no credit to it. The fact that you participate on such a bb as this is clear evidence that you rely upon and respect science.
--------------------------
Second statement:
Nehor state:
That we share a medium of communication is not evidence that we are using the same tools of analysis. I use the same toolset you're referring to in my life. I also have a different method that I use to acquire facts and truth. You seem to have never experienced it and thus decry it as useless.

I agree regarding analysis. In religion, one can make it up along the way. That is in fact how religious myth has evolved over time.

On the other hand, science is always self-critical. It questions it’s information and the conclusions reached. Hence, controlled testing. Science is reliable because of testing and challenging of conclusions. Your computer (our common denominator here) works because of testing and modifications over the period of the past mere 20 years.

Religion is no tool of analysis. You have never addressed the problem which religion has: truth by assertion. I have mentioned it numerous times, and you evade addressing it.

That’s how religion works. The inventions of religion are in that form. Science, on the other hand works because of my above brief description. It works because it is self-correcting and open to new information.

Have there been wrong conclusions by scientists? Indeed there have. And scientists recognize that because of possible error, testing is an essential part of the scientific method.

In religion there is no comparable discipline. Truth by assertion relies on no discipline for rational conclusion. It’s full of weasel words which allow pundits to slither out of responsibility for intellectual honesty.

A thousand years ago, there was no mass communication. A tiny percentage of people could read at all. Then and earlier, truth by assertion was largely unchallenged. It helps us understand that superstition (religious myth) could be easily perpetuated. Ignorant people -- especially the masses can be easily duped.

But that was then. This is now. For many who can read, who can think, who can cross-reference conclusions, superstition is entirely inadequate. Your computer does not function as a result of religious myth. If you tried to make it work by appeal to your God or your Holy Spirit, you would fail. It works as a result of applied reason, testing, enormous research.

Nehor, you don’t “acquire facts and truth.” You reject the very principles which are the foundation of acquiring facts. “Truth” is another weasel word. It means whatever you claim or want it to mean.

We know (or can know -- you cannot with a closed mind) the truth about a wide variety of subjects. We can know the accurate (truth) details which enable us to go into space and return. We can know the accurate (truth) which enhance our quality and quantity of life.

Religion and all its trappings, on the other hand, act as a drag on accumulation of information as it substitutes truth by assertion over truth by methodical intellectually honest fact-finding.

Historically, religion has generally opposed new invention and discovery. Most religious myths do that today as they attempt to slow or stifle scientific inquiry. (I can give documentation.)

While you claim “a different method,” you have articulated no method. The statement itself is vague and avoids detail. You have the burden of proof for your claims.

Third statement:
Nehor state:
I'm not the science cheerleader you seem to be and don't see it as the be all and end all of my perception of reality. Applied science has created some amazing things. There are many things it can not explain, the main one being, "Why?" at the most fundamental level.

You appear to want all the benefits of science while pretending to disregard it. The fact is that your conduct (at least on this bb) suggests that you are making use of science. I asked if you drove a car, observed stop lights, etc. Have you seen a dentist?

You are a “cheerleader” of religious myth but a user of science.

You present nothing to support your claim: “There are many things it can not explain, the main one being...”

It’s a false statement. You admit to disregarding science. Yet science in fact does explain the evolution of the planet earth. It details with considerable accuracy the time-frames for various species which are present as well as those which are extinct. It does so at “the most fundamental level” -- the single cell.

By disconnecting yourself from the vast information available today, you make claims which are false. Science examines the most fundamental level. You just prefer truth by assertion rather than truth by discovery, investigation, and careful detailed study.

It’s a straw man attack, Nehor. You are ignorant of what science has explored and explained to date. You’re like the Ostrich.

Forth statement:
Nehor state:
Funny you should say I'm academically damaged since your manner of conversation matches that of two people I know. One has Asperger's and the other is schizophrenic. I thought it wouldn't be polite to make the comparison but I thought it would make a nice counterpoint to your continual claims that I'm mentally defective.

I don’t know of your acquaintances. However, you demonstrate clearly that you are uninformed as well as misinformed. I base that conclusion on evidence supplied by you as you misrepresent science and fail to have much comprehensive information. I have detailed the particulars of that analysis, and you have admitted that you are “not the science cheerleader...”

You appear to be anti-science as you prefer ancient religious myth over present-day information well supported and tested.

Fifth statement:
Nehor state:
Yes, I do make lots and lots of claims. Try them out if you want to find the same things. If you have to wait for the scientific community of the Twenty-First Century (who you seem much more impressed by than I am) to come to a general consensus with full evidence before you take any action in life you must not live a very full life.

The burden of proof is yours to clarify and give particulars to support your claims. You are engaged in the straw man attack again. We all make decisions resulting in “action in life”. We can make those decisions based on fiction or we can make them based on sound research. If we are not expert ourselves on a given area for which action may be required, we can consult with people who have done the research and have the knowledge to clarify, advise, or instruct us based on fact not fiction and not ancient religious myth.

You substitute claims for knowledge and information as you are pontificating religious myth. But you use science as you write on your computer and do likely a very wide variety of other things which are based on science.

Now I want you to notice here that I quoted you verbatim from your post and responded to every paragraph you wrote.

You have never done that with posts from me. I submit you are incapable of it. You prefer vague, myth-claims to honest, direct response to what is said to you. You ask no questions, and you offer no analysis.

JAK

[_marg]

JAK,

I often ask myself when reading what others say, what are the rewards motivating someone. I've noticed on this board there are about 4 outspoken Mormon men with similar attitudes. They claim direct personal connection to god, they claim to have knowledge over and above what science gives and thus they have a truth greater than other people without that connection, they claim to have special medical healing powers given to them by God or Jesus. There are other claims but these are the main ones which come to mind.

All these men seem to exude low self esteem. To any man with low self worth, these Mormon beliefs would be highly attractive. They would help to compensate for a huge inferiority complex. I do believe the men on this BB that I'm thinking of, appreciate their beliefs are pretty nutty, but without them, they would just be average guys with not much to offer intellectually or even in their personality.

Now for the women I'm not sure. There are many aspects of Mormonism which I find demeaning to women, but I think women like how the men are encouraged to be very family devoted. So I think the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. I rarely read Mormon women talking as arrogantly as the men. The men try to elevate themselves to mini Gods.

That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it :)

[_The Nehor]

JAK,

I often ask myself when reading what others say, what are the rewards motivating someone. I've noticed on this board there are about 4 outspoken Mormon men with similar attitudes. They claim direct personal connection to god, they claim to have knowledge over and above what science gives and thus they have a truth greater than other people without that connection, they claim to have special medical healing powers given to them by God or Jesus. There are other claims but these are the main ones which come to mind.

All these men seem to exude low self esteem. To any man with low self worth, these Mormon beliefs would be highly attractive. They would help to compensate for a huge inferiority complex. I do believe the men on this BB that I'm thinking of, appreciate their beliefs are pretty nutty, but without them, they would just be average guys with not much to offer intellectually or even in their personality.

Now for the women I'm not sure. There are many aspects of Mormonism which I find demeaning to women, but I think women like how the men are encouraged to be very family devoted. So I think the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. I rarely read Mormon women talking as arrogantly as the men. The men try to elevate themselves to mini Gods.

That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it :)

I laughed when I read this. I'm accused by most people I know of having issues with being overly self-content and humorously arrogant. I'm curious how I exude low self-esteem here.

[_marg]

I laughed when I read this. I'm accused by most people I know of having issues with being overly self-content and humorously arrogant. I'm curious how I exude low self-esteem here.

overly self-content? No I don't consider you that.

arrogant? Yes, but it's likely my idea of arrogance differs to yours. I think it's arrogance to claim one can heal others via connection to a God. It's arrogance to claim one has "truth and facts" over and above the experiential world, via a God connection. In effect Nehor what you are claiming is that you have more knowledge, more certainty in facts and truth than all others who don't claim such truths.

Evidence for your low self esteem? Well I think your beliefs which I mentioned are used as compensation for your inferiority complex. I don't think you truly believe what you say but I think you feel somehow it makes you sound special and superior to others. You are trying to compensate for low self esteem. Someone who is self confident doesn't make claims to things which are obviously beyond their capabilities. Someone self confident is humble. And I don't think you are intellectually honest on this board. You are playing a game and maybe if you can convince others you can convince yourself. Smith and his buddies did the same thing, so it's understandable you'd try to play the same game.

[_The Nehor]

I laughed when I read this. I'm accused by most people I know of having issues with being overly self-content and humorously arrogant. I'm curious how I exude low self-esteem here.

overly self-content? No I don't consider you that.

arrogant? Yes, but it's likely my idea of arrogance differs to yours. I think it's arrogance to claim one can heal others via connection to a God. It's arrogance to claim one has "truth and facts" over and above the experiential world, via a God connection. In effect Nehor what you are claiming is that you have more knowledge, more certainty in facts and truth than all others who don't claim such truths.

Evidence for your low self esteem? Well I think your beliefs which I mentioned are used as compensation for your inferiority complex. I don't think you truly believe what you say but I think you feel somehow it makes you sound special and superior to others. You are trying to compensate for low self esteem. Someone who is self confident doesn't make claims to things which are obviously beyond their capabilities. Someone self confident is humble. And I don't think you are intellectually honest on this board. You are playing a game and maybe if you can convince others you can convince yourself. Smith and his buddies did the same thing, so it's understandable you'd try to play the same game.

Ohhh, ouch. If they were just claims I'd agree with you. The difference is I have the inside scoop on them. I know what they are, what they stem from, and have the memories to explain context.

I would like to think if I had an inferiority complex I could come up with a better way of enhancing myself. I don't think the things you've accused me of are beyond my capabilities, I know that they are. God does most of the work. I just show up for the buffet. The accusation of intellectual honesty doesn't really ring true since you are asking me to deny some of my experiences and favor the established consensus of the scientific community as the supreme method of discovering the way the world works. I can't do it, I've done enough experiments on my own to know what does and does not work.

[_marg]

JAK asks Nehor: Are we to also suppose your illusion includes your God talks back? --Speaks in English, we might presume. --Speaks with a male voice, we might presume. --Speaks to you only, we might presume. --And of course you can provide no evidence for any God notions which you wish to keep concealed from scrutiny.

And Nehor’s response: What do you expect God to talk to me in? Some vague proto-language? Adamic? Enochian? That might pose a problem as I would have no idea what the hell it was talking about. No, the voice is not exclusively male. If you wanted to know, you could have asked instead of guessing and imputing to me your own stereotypes. No, I don't think God talks exclusively to me. However I am not a competent judge of anyone else's experiences. Neither are you come to think of it.

Rather than recount in detail this alleged miraculous experience which a person who truly experienced it would be eager to do, you Nehor pathetically respond with “no, the voice is not exclusively male”.

JAK is correct you do wish to keep your God notions from scrutiny. You have responded to him as a person would, who has something to hide. I remember when I read statements from the Book of Mormon witnesses I observed the same thing, lack of detail. When people are not forthcoming on detail of their experiences their claims do not ring true.

[_The Nehor]

What do you want to know? You and JAK deny most of what I say and call the rest emotional reactions.

So, what do you want to know about my experiences?