What's the utility of faith?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Rambo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 am

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Rambo »

mormonx wrote:
Rambo wrote:
It was not a try I just proved to you that dying for something you believe in is not evidence.


did you? You guys have a very low view of proof. You totally skirted my argument. yes many men have died for what they believe to be true, not many died for a lie. These were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they knew Christ did not rise, if it was a conspiracy thought up by them, then they knew it was a lie and probably wouldn't have died for that lie. The subtlety is lost on you. If the crazy muslims knew Allah was fiction, they probably wouldn't have cut their life short for him.

You, and everyone on here seems to think that all evidence must be 100% compelling. Have you been in a court room lately? it's the preponderance of evidence that you look for.


There are 11 eye witnesses for the Book of Mormon how come you don't believe in that? It holds up in a court room.

How many eye witnesses actually wrote the new testament? If I remember correctly it was only 2 people that were eye witnesses that wrote about Jesus. Are we suppose to take their word for what Jesus did?
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _beefcalf »

mormonx wrote:Besides Mormons are a easy target when it comes to evidence arguments. They don't have any. The only reason a atheist would hang here is because they can't hang with the big dogs. Try http://www.premier.org.uk/ for a right proper Christian ass kicking ;-)


From your presence here can we safely extrapolate that you just weren't cut out for the big leagues over at Premier.org.uk? Decided to slum with the rest of us wannabes here in the farm-league, eh? That's lucky for us. With your arrival, the average calibre of posters here at MDB just shot up a few dozen percent. Thanks.

It might sound strange, but I invite you to consider that those of us who post here are interested in the topic of 'Mormonism'. Christianity, while it get debated here, is typically discussed as it relates to the LDS restorationist movement.
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
_Dantana
_Emeritus
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:53 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Dantana »

Buffalo wrote:What is the utility of faith? Faith doesn't seem to be a principle that applied in the premortal existence, and yet we were able to be tested and make choices. It doesn't appear to be a principle that will be used in the afterlife either - faith will be replaced by knowledge. So we're not practicing for the afterlife with faith - it's only utilized in this life.

So of what utility is faith now? Faith is belief without evidence, and practicing faith in almost anything will have negative consequences. If you have faith in the wrong religion, you won't make it to the CK. If you have faith in a con artist, you will be swindled. If you have faith in a violent or perverse person, you or your loved ones may be victimized. If we have faith in pseudo-science, human progress is impeded.

So, even if you accept that the restored gospel is true, faith in most things is potentially damaging and dangerous. From a scientific perspective, faith will almost always yield the wrong answer. We don't need faith to make choices - we didn't need it in the pre-existence. In fact, the more information you have, the better you are able to make choices. We learn much more by the exercise of an informed decision after considering all the facts than we do by guessing. So free agency is really impeded by faith and enhanced by knowledge.

I would submit that faith as a religious principle is strictly an ad hoc doctrine, a theological innovation brought about to comfort believers in the face of a world that isn't really haunted by gods and demons and magic. People who don't suffer from hallucinations and don't eat spoiled food or hallucinogenic drugs don't tend to see gods or angels or hear voices. Faith is the ad hoc doctrine that explains why. Faith doesn't seem to have any value beyond that, however.

Thoughts?



Good question. Apparently God feels a person who carries faith as a part of his personality makeup is his kinda guy. As the story goes, this earthly estate is a testing station, as God finds himself needing to sift souls.....weed out the tares. (why it's the tares fault that it is a tare I still don't understand)

And again apparently at the top of gods list of most desirable attributes in a soul is the ability to use ones free will......to not use ones free will, and obey every one of the countless rules sent down obligingly. To play follow the leader unquestioningly.

To me, the whole system seams flawed as his reward and punishment system isn't going to give an accurate reading of the true value of souls. Many souls will be waltzing into heaven simply because they feared the whip and sought after the carrot.

This is the best way to get the cream to rise to the top, Incentives and threats?

If I ever get to run things, I think a better way to get a true reading of a souls worth would be to put em on a planet, do away with the veil/faith nonsense, don't give em any rules, don't tell em it's a test.

Curt
_Rambo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 am

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Rambo »

mormonx wrote:did you? You guys have a very low view of proof. You totally skirted my argument. yes many men have died for what they believe to be true, not many died for a lie. These were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they knew Christ did not rise, if it was a conspiracy thought up by them, then they knew it was a lie and probably wouldn't have died for that lie. The subtlety is lost on you. If the crazy muslims knew Allah was fiction, they probably wouldn't have cut their life short for him.

You, and everyone on here seems to think that all evidence must be 100% compelling. Have you been in a court room lately? it's the preponderance of evidence that you look for.


Ok here are some people that are eye witnesses to their prophet and they died for what they believed in as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhYrSF3ubBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKQ2a7tQLd4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws

Here is their prophet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo

Again dying for something you believe in even if you are and eyewitness is not evidence.

Oh I am sure these people will claim this guy is special just like people claimed Jesus was special.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Buffalo »

Nightlion wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Jesus the historical figure? Sure, I can prove he doesn't presently exist as a living person. When was he born? 2000 years ago or so? The maximum level for human lifespan is well below 200 years, let alone 2000 years.

But that isn't what I was talking about. You're probably used to talking to atheists who think Jesus was a fictional character - that isn't me. I'm talking about the GOD YOU WORSHIP, not just the limited historical Jesus.

It boils down to this, in a nutshell. For Christians, Jesus is the great "I Am." In other words, Yahweh.

Just one problem - Yahweh isn't original to the Hebrews, and was not originally the grand creator God. Yahweh replaced/merged with El in the Hebrew pantheon. El was a god they stole from the Canaanites, while Yahweh was a god stolen from other tribes in the Sinai/ Paran/ Edom/ Teiman area. That's where Yahweh first comes into the picture, as a minor god (sometimes a war god, sometimes a god of storms or metallurgy) worshiped by various tribes, later appropriated and promoted by the Jews.. It's only later that he becomes conflated with El.

El himself is also not original to the Hebrews. He's what you'd call a pagan god. He was a carouser and a drunkard. He had a body and a penis and he used it to impregnate his various wives:

In one of the Ugaritic (the earliest worshippers of El, as far as I know) texts it tells the story of how El impregnated the goddesses Asherah and Rahmay:

Long is El's penis like Sea's.
El's penis is like that of Flood...
El bends his bowstave,
He draws his mighty shaft...
El seduces his wives,
Lo, the two women cry:
O husband! husband! streched is your bowstave,
Drawn is your mighty shaft...
The women are (now) El's wives...
The two travail and give birth...

So yes, I can absolutely prove that your particular god isn't real. I can prove it by showing his evolution, and how humans have changed him over the centuries. He has all the hallmarks of a fictional character.

Awe gee, this is the crap you have to put up with when you have the blind leading the blind. Always got to pull their ox out of the ditch.

BIG CLUE science brats, ah, ahem, you know, like after Noah, everybody was Christian, as it were, they all knew the same things.

But then Nimrod and his Satanists decided to slice and dice and serve the devil and chopped up the truth into the many little bits and pieces strewn about history that you can now pick up and mock religion like you know so much about it.

SO, bottom line is when stories go around that OTHER guys were crucified, did miracles, walked on water, had disciples and raised the dead and came back from the tomb, those are all tellings of the story of redemption from all those hacked up 'likening them to their own apostasy' legends which renamed Christ and God and were all about the same thing. Think ye humans, what more can I say?

Moses actually LEARNED from a Bedouin sheep herder out in the Sinai. The world knew the truth and, just like today, everyone wanted to make it conform to themselves. I bet Sodom and Gomorrah thought themselves righteous, some how. Politically correct after their fashion.


You didn't really touch on what I was talking about, but this idea you have about anachronistically projecting your faith further back than when it originated is an idea Joseph Smith stole from George Oliver.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Buffalo »

mormonx wrote:
Math is an invention of the human mind.


wow... from the empirical warrior comes the stupidest statement ever uttered by an atheist, Dawkins would be ashamed of you. I'm going to hang that on my wall. Math, an invention of man. So I guess 2 + 2 = 5 would've worked just as well if we had decided to go that way. I guess 1 potato sitting next to another potato would not be 2 potatoes in some distant destruction of man. If this is your logic, it all makes sense, because by this definition, logic is also made by man. How can you trust your own logic if it's just chemicals.. in fact, I think you just had a chemical spike you might want to check into.

Math is a discovery.. Math exists as do Laws and logic outside of Matter. It doesn't need humans, plants earth, space time, because it RULES it all.

I noticed you never got back on your disproving my God with linguistics.


Math is an abstract concept. It's not like it exists out there in the universe for anyone to pluck down and put under a microscope.

I know you're a high school drop out - have you considered getting your GED and going to community college, at least?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Buffalo »

mormonx wrote:Thanks for being a little more reasonable. I don't argue with atheist because it is futile.


It's futile for you because you're unable to come up with a coherent defense of your faith. Pity. There are intelligent, educated Christians, but you're not one of them.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Buffalo »

Hoops wrote:

Demonstrate that the existence of the universe requires some sort of creator. Don't just assert - provide EVIDENCE.

The only time I mentioned a Creator was in a biblical reference. I'm not speaking of that now. Does anyone currently support the universe coming into being without a First Cause? Now, you're being purposefully obtuse.


The universe has zero total energy. All the energy in all the planets and stars etc is counterbalanced by the negative energy of gravity. The sum total is zero. So yes, the universe could definitely come into being without any intelligent intervention. Universes may pop into existence all the time through quantum fluctuations.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Patriarchal gripe
_Emeritus
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:10 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Patriarchal gripe »


You, and everyone on here seems to think that all evidence must be 100% compelling. Have you been in a court room lately? it's the preponderance of evidence that you look for.

There are 11 eye witnesses for the Book of Mormon how come you don't believe in that? It holds up in a court room.

How many eye witnesses actually wrote the new testament? If I remember correctly it was only 2 people that were eye witnesses that wrote about Jesus. Are we suppose to take their word for what Jesus did?


I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), but how well would seeing objects using "second sight" hold up in a court of law?

Also, how may witnesses did J.J. Strang have for his fraud?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: What's the utility of faith?

Post by _Buffalo »

mormonx wrote:did you? You guys have a very low view of proof. You totally skirted my argument. yes many men have died for what they believe to be true, not many died for a lie. These were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they knew Christ did not rise, if it was a conspiracy thought up by them, then they knew it was a lie and probably wouldn't have died for that lie. The subtlety is lost on you. If the crazy muslims knew Allah was fiction, they probably wouldn't have cut their life short for him.

You, and everyone on here seems to think that all evidence must be 100% compelling. Have you been in a court room lately? it's the preponderance of evidence that you look for.


Many people from many religions have died for their beliefs. Many men have claimed to be god (but Jesus wasn't one of them).

The preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no god at all.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply