The Book of Mormon proves the supernatural exists

[Kishkumen]

I have no idea what implications my mini-lecture about Ptolemy may have for the larger discussion in this thread. I just spat it out in reflex because the topic came up. I wasn't trying to make any point about the Book of Mormon.

For myself, I feel less disrespected if someone considers me to be wrong about a conclusion, than if they somehow make out that what I'm really wrong about is thinking that the issue even matters. In fact I could be wrong about that, as well, but it would make me feel stupider, so I'd rather just be plain wrong. There's no shame in being wrong. Everyone is, quite often.

I have read parts of the Book of Mormon, but certainly not all of it. Are there any great passages that I should be sure not to miss? What are its best shots?

Perhaps that would be a good new thread, actually.

Well, my point was to say that someone’s sense of the significance of a text was not necessarily limited to its aesthetic qualities or lack thereof. I called the Book of Mormon an oracular text because it invites others to treat is as an oracle. What I mean by that is the text invites the reader to ask in prayer and faith whether it is true, and those who get an answer, or at least believe they do, see the text quite differently from those who think the most important measure of a profound spiritual text should be its literary beauty or some such.

[drumdude]

I give them the respect of taking them seriously as responding to real experiences that reflect something that does indeed exist. We may not fully understand it, or even much at all, but I don’t presume to say that I am better than they are because I am somehow as a human being so much less tragically wrong than they are. To my mind you sound arrogant as hell.

You can give someone respect without taking them seriously. You don’t have to believe they experienced something real. And it doesn’t make you arrogant to disagree with them.

I think the reason you got so much push back on this is because your statement is almost verbatim the kind of justification anyone who believes something outrageous like flat earth, or young earth creationism uses.

Skepticism should be much more socially acceptable. There are too many people who are credulous as a way of being polite. Bad ideas should be pushed back on forcefully and it shouldn’t be taken as rude.

[Chap]

Of course, before you object and explain, it is important to understand what you are objecting to and explaining. I think it is important to understand that the major world religions have been tied up in some of the most intense intellectual discourse and philosophical thought of the ages, and for that reason they probably do merit some respect. The facile objections of those whom Dean Robbers calls “science popularizers” (an apt if unfortunate phrase) do not do justice to that legacy.

And, I would go further and say that some of the greatest and most influential minds in history did have the mystical experiences they believed to be the experience of God or the One, or what have you. I think it would be foolish to disrespect that too.

No one says you have to agree with them or believe what they believe, but an inability to weigh properly the significance of these things in human history is characteristic of the ignorant and arrogant.

Sigh. I am an atheist, and have been for some years. I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true (I leave the others to one side for the present discussion). Since many people believe that decisions affecting the lives of real people in the real world should be made on the basis that those truth-claims are true, I think it important to make the point that they are not. Does that make me a "science populariser" with "facile objections"? Frankly, if straw-man caricatures of those whose opinions you don't like help you get through life, be my guest.

As for the fact that

major world religions have been tied up in some of the most intense intellectual discourse and philosophical thought of the ages

I sorta had noticed that. Must be something to do with my reading chunks of Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas in my teens, and a lot more since then: Pascal, Joseph Butler, and quite a few others. But ... I am an atheist, I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true, and I think it is important to say so.

some of the greatest and most influential minds in history did have the mystical experiences they believed to be the experience of God or the One, or what have you

Yup, I noticed that too. Something to do with reading St John of the Cross, the Cloud of Unknowing, Revelations of Divine Love, and stuff you may not be familiar with. But ... I am an atheist, I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true, and I think it is important to say so.

And so on. Try to find some other way of dealing with opinions you dislike apart from caricature, maybe?

[Kishkumen]

You can give someone respect without taking them seriously. You don’t have to believe they experienced something real. And it doesn’t make you arrogant to disagree with them.

I don't think it is true that you can respect someone without taking them at least somewhat seriously. And I never said that it makes a person arrogant to disagree with someone else. That is absurd, and I never said that.

I think the reason you got so much push back on this is because your statement is almost verbatim the kind of justification anyone who believes something outrageous like flat earth, or young earth creationism uses.

Well, I would distinguish between those statements, and I don't see them as being on par with each other. Thanks for helping me see where the disconnect is. I don't equate these things at all, but it is helpful for me to understand that others here do.

Skepticism should be much more socially acceptable. There are too many people who are credulous as a way of being polite. Bad ideas should be pushed back on forcefully and it shouldn’t be taken as rude.

I don't think people are credulous as a way of being polite. I think they are polite as a way of being decent human beings. The place to push back on ideas forcefully would be in education. As for other fora, so long as you know you are there to give and take, as we are here, I think that is fine. Still, I think one of the problems we have today is that we are all over the place burping and farting out our direly important opinions, and our failure to understand why so many people are miserable and alienated from each other somehow eludes so many people. We have so many crusaders out to correct others, and the result is that people have forgotten manners, they take everything personally, and we all get whipped up into a self-righteous frenzy.

I think it is fine for us to rough and tumble here, though. I don't have anything against the atheists here. I just don't agree with them and I never have. I have always maintained some form of belief in the divine, and yet I have gotten along well here for ages. This is probably changing because I am tired of the same conversations. Now that I am sharing different kinds of positions, I am getting other kinds of pushback.

That's OK.

[Kishkumen]

Sigh. I am an atheist, and have been for some years. I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true (I leave the others to one side for the present discussion). Since many people believe that decisions affecting the lives of real people in the real world should be made on the basis that those truth-claims are true, I think it important to make the point that they are not. Does that make me a "science populariser" with "facile objections"? Frankly, if straw-man caricatures of those whose opinions you don't like help you get through life, be my guest.

Ahem. I think it does make a difference that I was addressing my comments to stem. I don't know why you are sighing. Are you stem? Does what I say to stem as stem reflect poorly on you in some way? Should I assume that you and stem have exactly the same opinions, background, education, etc.?

When I talk about Richard Dawkins, does it offend you personally, as though the two of you are interchangeable? If I don't care for Richard Dawkins' opinions, and I am not impressed by his coverage of religion, does that mean I am accusing you of being a science popularizer? Was Dean Robbers addressing you personally and calling you some kind of pop-science celebrity? Maybe there is something that Dean Robbers knows about you, or should have known about you that I do not. Are you Richard Dawkins?

Just curious, because I can't help but notice that you seem to be taking my comments about people who are not you, or at least I do not think are you, as though they were made directly to you.

I sorta had noticed that. Must be something to do with my reading chunks of Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas in my teens, and a lot more since then: Pascal, Joseph Butler, and quite a few others. But ... I am an atheist, I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true, and I think it is important to say so.

Thank you for your testimony, Chap. I will remember when I address comments to stem that I should be careful to coordinate them with my recollection of you as well.

And so on. Try to find some other way of dealing with opinions you dislike apart from caricature, maybe?

I don't see the caricature, Mr. Dawkins. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[drumdude]

Now that I am sharing different kinds of positions, I am getting other kinds of pushback.

That's OK.

I think it's totally ok, and I'm glad you're sharing them. I do assume most people here are atheist by default, since it seems like that's 90% of where ex-Mormons end up.

[Rivendale]

Now that I am sharing different kinds of positions, I am getting other kinds of pushback.

That's OK.

I think it's totally ok, and I'm glad you're sharing them. I do assume most people here are atheist by default, since it seems like that's 90% of where ex-Mormons end up.

And according to Jared Halverson once former Mormons lose their faith they lose faith in some of the most important elements of life. They lose the ability to maintain relationships with family and friends. They refuse to accept counter narratives as faith affirming. Prophets can be wrong and still be prophets. Joseph Smith can marry children but can still be called of god. They succumb to the adversaries use of polemics and ignore the tbm rhetoric.

[drumdude]

I think it's totally ok, and I'm glad you're sharing them. I do assume most people here are atheist by default, since it seems like that's 90% of where ex-Mormons end up.

And according to Jared Halverson once former Mormons lose their faith they lose faith in some of the most important elements of life. They lose the ability to maintain relationships with family and friends. They refuse to accept counter narratives as faith affirming. Prophets can be wrong and still be prophets. Joseph Smith can marry children but can still be called of god. They succumb to the adversaries use of polemics and ignore the tbm rhetoric.

I think these things are definitely affected, but they can be rebuilt within a new context without religion. The Nordic/northern European countries where most people are born without religion and never accept any religion are a great example of how to live a happy life without it. I wish every Mormon could get a chance to see how they live up there. It's quite idyllic.

[Kishkumen]

Do you really buy that nonsense known as the World Happiness Report?

Do you also think Eurovision is an a-political music contest?

[Chap]

Sigh. I am an atheist, and have been for some years. I don't believe that the truth-claims of the Abrahamic religions are true (I leave the others to one side for the present discussion). Since many people believe that decisions affecting the lives of real people in the real world should be made on the basis that those truth-claims are true, I think it important to make the point that they are not. Does that make me a "science populariser" with "facile objections"? Frankly, if straw-man caricatures of those whose opinions you don't like help you get through life, be my guest.

Ahem. I think it does make a difference that I was addressing my comments to stem. ...

It's an open discussion board. When I see a post that, as happens not seldom, associates atheism with naïvété, superficiality and lack of awareness of the complexities of western culture, I do not think that I do any harm by pointing out that such associations are themselves somewhat superficial and misleading.