Breaking Away

[_sock puppet]

SP,

The non sequitur is yours. Your under the assumption that since LDS folks are more disapproving of those who stop believingin the Church they go, more often, straight to unbelief altogether.

hey you might be right that there are more LDS who go straight to unbelief than those of other religions. We simply don't know that. But your conclusion does not necessarily follow. There might be less percentage-wise who go faster to atheism. It may not be the disapproval of family and friends that drive people to atheism at all.

It wasn't my observation about the express from Mo to Atheist. It was Ceeboo's, and you know what, he's a never Mo. So the observation is not tainted with TBM or ex-mo critic brushing.

[_sock puppet]

Sock, I can't say I've become an atheist; agnostic is a better label because I really don't know if there is some prime creator or prime actor and if there is, I am not sure of this prime actors nature or influence on my life.

LDST, these questions are asked respectfully:

1-do you know if there is in fact a Santa Claus?

2-do you know if there is in fact an Easter Bunny?

What makes the question of the existence of diety any different? There is no credible evidence of any of the three.

I see what you are driving at, Sock, and I appreciate your query.

Let me expand a bit on what I believe. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are important characters in certain social traditions. At some point, everyone learns that Father Christmas is a fictional character used to bring a certain 'magical' element to the season, and for the most part, we all acknowledge the mythical nature of this character at some point in our lives.

With the LDS god, all rests on what really happened in Palmyra and Joseph's credibility. Given that Joseph's credibility is disputed by counter-evidences that we don't need to discuss here, it follows that the existence of Joseph's god is also questionable. One can be convinced that no supernatural deity came to Joseph in the grove that spring morning in 1820. And thus, one can conclude that a deity of flesh and bone with a son of flesh and bone is not tenable.

Joseph's modern recounting of God dismissed, a traditional Christian god remains. Given the problems of the biblical narrative (left as an exercise for the reader to discover), and a dearth of evidence that could corroborate the miracles and happenings of the Old and New Testament, it is logical to conclude that the deity of Christianity is a fiction; elaborately crafted over time, but a fiction nonetheless.

With the modern LDS god dismissed, and the traditional Christian god gone (and with it, the god of Abraham and thus the god of Islam and the god of Judaism); I have no faith, hope, or belief in a god that resembles either. I've not studied other non-Abrahamic religions, but I admit that I will not accept, readily, any god that has not made itself personally manifest to me, in person.

All that said, I go back to a question that perplexes me and I'd venture to guess, perplexes a great many people. How did this universe come to be? All theories notwithstanding, I feel that there is room for some model of creation that involves a prime cause or even a prime creator. I'm not talking about intelligent design - I firmly reject that idea. What I'm really talking about here is some force or hand that set things in motion and then perhaps never influenced again. Or perhaps, influences at certain points.

Thus, I don't call myself an atheist because, while I reject the notion of miraculous, parental, interfering, micro-managing deities, I do accept that I do not know everything beyond the scope of this universe and even beyond the scope of my own existence. Even though I make room for a model of creation that may have been influenced by an external, prime actor, I leave very little room for reverence of such an actor.

My views are most likely problematic, and most definitely full of holes and contradictions. But I have no other way of describing them.

Hope that sheds some light.

H.

It does shed some light.

It also begs the question of how did that external, prime actor itself come to be? Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation. And so an intervening actor becomes superfluous as an explanation for why this universe and we exist. Such an actor, in my estimation, merely serves as a roadblock to our inquiring back to the point and accepting the randomness of it all.

Man's search for meaning is the mother of religious mythical invention.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Sock,

I hope you don't mind my intrusion.

I was hoping to get a better understanding of your take

It also begs the question of how did that external, prime actor itself come to be?

I find that to be a fair.

Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation.

(I am not debating, I am asking in the hopes of greater understanding from my non-believing friends. Promise)

Do you believe this "big-cosmic bang in THE beginning" to be a fact or a theory?

What/who/how/where did the "stuff" that caused the big-cosmic bang come from?

And so an intervening actor becomes superfluous as an explanation for why this universe and we exist. Such an actor, in my estimation, merely serves as a roadblock to our inquiring back to the point and accepting the randomness of it all.

Again, a sincere question only: (No contention, debate, or implications involved/intended)

Could you try to expand on your proposal of "accepting the randomness of it all?". (Believer's want to know) :)

Man's search for meaning is the mother of religious mythical invention.

Thanks in advance for taking my questions as simply that.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_honorentheos]

Ceeboo,

In the spirit of just asking questions to gain a better understanding without meaning anything more by it, I have a couple of questions.

Earlier, you had suggested that my comment, "Give a person some credit for not falling into the same pit twice" was an example of just the point you were hoping to make.

So I'm curious - would you be so kind as to answer "yes" or "no" to the following:

1) A person who is a believer in the Prophet Joseph Smith could, in some way, be seen as being in a figurative pit.

2) A person who stops believing in the Prophet Joseph Smith but retains a belief in God could be seen as having been raised or climbed out of a figurative pit.

Thank you in advance for taking my questions as simply that.

[_LDSToronto]

It does shed some light.

It also begs the question of how did that external, prime actor itself come to be? Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation. And so an intervening actor becomes superfluous as an explanation for why this universe and we exist. Such an actor, in my estimation, merely serves as a roadblock to our inquiring back to the point and accepting the randomness of it all.

Man's search for meaning is the mother of religious mythical invention.

Like I said, there are problems with every model. And don't make the mistake of thinking I believe there is a prime actor; I've left room for the possibility, but I remain completely ambivalent on the matter.

Concerning meaning, I believe existence precedes essence. I've always believed that, even as a Mormon and in fact that was one of the most dissonant aspects of living as a defined Mormon and also as someone who believed that he creates everything about himself.

H.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Honor,

Ceeboo,

In the spirit of just asking questions to gain a better understanding without meaning anything more by it, I have a couple of questions.

Earlier, you had suggested that my comment, "Give a person some credit for not falling into the same pit twice" was an example of just the point you were hoping to make.

So I'm curious - would you be so kind as to answer "yes" or "no" to the following:

Sure

1) A person who is a believer in the Prophet Joseph Smith could, in some way, be seen as being in a figurative pit.

Yes

2) A person who stops believing in the Prophet Joseph Smith but retains a belief in God could be seen as having been raised or climbed out of a figurative pit.

No

Thank you in advance for taking my questions as simply that.

You are welcome

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for the answers, Ceeboo.

Could you elaborate on the second answer a bit more? Is there a reason this person could not be said to have been raised out of the pit if the person who believes in Joseph Smith is seen as being in one?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again honor

Thanks for the answers, Ceeboo.

Anytime.

Could you elaborate on the second answer a bit more?

Sure (I will try)

Is there a reason this person could not be said to have been raised out of the pit if the person who believes in Joseph Smith is seen as being in one?

It is my opinion that a belief (or non belief) in a God/Creator should not be determined/cemented/influenced in or by any man, organization, or group of mere human beings. (I fully realize that many, many people would place Jesus on the mere human list I provide).

Simply put, it is my opinion that a belief in a God/Creator (or no belief in a God/Creator) has no "pit" to climb in or out of (On either side)

Although I am starting to get the feeling you are gowing more and more annoyed with each of my posts/opinions/comments of late (Sorry if I have read you wrong), I would suggest that this is the common price we all must pay in order to learn, digest, understand, and consider the the variety of thoughts, beliefs, bias, and different journeys that we have traveled, and indeed will travel in the future.

Hope that helps.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation.

(I am not debating, I am asking in the hopes of greater understanding from my non-believing friends. Promise)

Do you believe this "big-cosmic bang in THE beginning" to be a fact or a theory?

Theory. It is the best explanation to date that I have come across, including theories of intelligent design/creationism. It had to be so colossal that this earth was one of the things that per chance resulted. But it was just a change of energy and matter into a rearrangement of energy and matter, that have always existed.

What/who/how/where did the "stuff" that caused the big-cosmic bang come from?

Your question points up, in my opinion, the futility of religious explanations for how the cosmos came to be. Following back, one must eventually end with the conclusion that something has always been. At some terminal point in the analysis, something--an intelligence, matter, energy--has always existed. It wasn't created. Getting our head around that concept is difficult because we're used to observing things that have a beginning and an end, like birth and death. We know there is time on either side of those events, but we eventually tire out in our investigation of what came before the beginning, and the beginning before that one, and the one before that, ... . One answer to a question like that always begs the next.

A god is a highly organized concept. So who organized god? And who before the organizer, created the organizer? And so on and so forth. That does not give us an answer.

Energy/matter has always existed, but merely changes form due to physical properties and circumstances. Einstein helped us understand that. Something is "created" only in the sense that it results from changes to something else that preexisted the "created" thing.

Entropy is, IIUC, the principle that everything is in a state of decay. When the big bang occurred, billions and billions and billions of particles of matter exploded across the universe. Our earth is one of them. It is in the process of decaying as compared to its earlier states. The big bang was itself a process of decay.

And so an intervening actor becomes superfluous as an explanation for why this universe and we exist. Such an actor, in my estimation, merely serves as a roadblock to our inquiring back to the point and accepting the randomness of it all.

Again, a sincere question only: (No contention, debate, or implications involved/intended)

Could you try to expand on your proposal of "accepting the randomness of it all?". (Believer's want to know) :)

Realizing that attributing things to a creator per se just begins an infinite regression back in time, to attributing earlier states to one previous creator after another ad infinitum and never coming to an understanding of how it all started--because it never did start, but has always existed is the only answer that will completely satisfy us given our concepts and understandings of time. Realizing that in one form or another, matter/energy has always existed, then how can we account for this seemingly complex earth and the human organism? The answer is looking into the sky, realizing just how vast the universe is and that merely by random there would be sufficient chance that this very planet called earth and this type of organism we call human would exist, as a result of changes in energy and matter. Therein lies the randomness.

Accepting the randomness of it all is difficult for the human ego. We want there to be a purpose, that we are 'special' not merely a random throw off from a big bang. But to date, randomness from a big bang that itself was just a change of energy/matter that has always existed is the best explanation that does not require that one keep inquiring back in time, endlessly. That is, the big bang theory is the best terminal explanation of it all.

Someone will come along and explain to us someday even greater insights. Until then, the big bang is the best explanation that does not merely beg the question.

Disclaimer: These are my amateur understandings and explanations of the big bang theory and Einstein's ideas. My apologies to the scientists reading this for the obvious hack job that I have done here.

[_honorentheos]

Thanks again, Ceeboo.

For the record, I'm not particularly aggitated or annoyed by anything you have said. As I stated in the other thread, I thought the quote in this thread is misguided and insensitive, but I doubted you intended it to be offensive so I did not take it that way. That said, I also did not feel any particular need to hide my hand as it were. I disagreed with your view, and I think a Mormon Discussion Board is as good a place as any to do so openly.

Anyway, if you had answered both questions above as "yes", your point would seem clear enough to me and I probably would not have any follow-up questions though we would continue to disagree. Your answer above did not really clarify the response you gave me earlier. I'm not sure why you would suggest that the comment, "Give a person credit for not falling in the same pit twice" directly reflects you comment above, quoted here for clarity - "Simply put, it is my opinion that a belief in a God/Creator (or no belief in a God/Creator) has no "pit" to climb in or out of (On either side)".

Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

Thanks.