asbestosman wrote:Who Knows wrote:where's the elimination of bias?
Crap. Looks like you win.
I still wonder though if science is really the best way to learn about the truth about everything.
Who Knows wrote:Can science tell me anything about love? Can I prove what love is? Can you experience the same love that I have? No. But I think my love for my wife and kids is 'true'.
Of course that says nothing about it's universal application.
asbestosman wrote:OK then, I'm fine saying that religion is different than science.
Unlike science it cannot eliminate bias.
Like science I think one can test it and find evidence for it or against it.
Does that work?
grampa75 wrote:I have experienced in my life time many people who have apostized from the Church. It usualy seems to me that the person who has left the church or will leave the Church has indulged in practices that the Mormon Church only allows long enough for a person to come to his or her sense and repents. One other way is when a man or woman has become offended by a Bishop's, stake President's or Apostle's remarks that may have offended the person. King Soloman wrote;
("A man offended is harder to win than a strong city.)
If it has been a teaching of the Church that has offended a person then please let us know what the offense was, in that way perhaps we may be able to correct a man's teachings.
I have heard said in the Church that a prophet of God is not able to lead people astray. Well, in the right light I could agree with that; "If we ask God about any teaching from any person, no matter if that person belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ or is a prophet or apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ, it will then be God who will testify to us, one way or the other, or if the teaching is true or it is not. It is as easy as that. Let me give you another example where in some cases where the individual who leaves the Church if not familiar enough with the Churches actual teachings to judge the truth of any teaching.
VegasRefugee wrote:I often reflect upon what helped me normalize my worldview and leave the incorrect worldview of Mormonism behind. I can cite books by Sagan mostly as the catalyst that led me into rational thought, but honestly the change was along time coming before that.
I'm currently 27 and the church left me when I was 25. Upon entering school the need for a rational outlook was made imperative. In particular Mike Norton and Shades were instrumental along with RFM, in regards to an outlet for the overwhelming anger I felt at the time. The anger is still there but its focused and honed.
Above all else I see my willingness to sit down and read the "other side" of the debate coming from the two year wake up call that was beaten into me during my mission. Slogging 12 hours a day knocking on doors in Minnesota just to be constantly told that I was in a cult both hinders and strengthens ones willingness to hold onto a false worldview. Pouring over FARMS documents and SHIELDS articles left me with an empty feeling inside. After reading the documents and discussing the matter with former seminary teachers of mine I knew it was all a lie. I just needed to make the leap into rational thought and act upon what I had learned.
Life it seemed changed the day I threw my garments away. Even after I made it known to my wife that I was not going back to church I kept them for some stupd reason. The day I dumped the laundry bag full of poorly made (yet expensive) white garments into the garbage was one of the happiest days of my life. It felt like I had sheared off shackles. Literally.
But hands down, the willingness to ditch the kooky worldview of Mormonism hinged on acting upon what I had learned. The more I relearned about episodes in church history the more I could get out of it. it was as if I could see the actual history of the church, not the vanilla faith-promoting ludicrous nature of the candy coated accounts. I could see the early church members as real people, not the cardboard cutouts portrayed by official church history that had been sanitized.
So to the believers I ask you what it would take for you to leave the church. What fact made evident would it take for you to ditch your faith? What fact would make your world change?
Aquinas wrote: Logical conversation? Are you kidding me? There hasn't been a hint of logic prior to or after my post of Aquinas' argument. I suggest you reopen your logic textbook and bone up on what logic is, since you appear not to know.
I don't care that my argument didn't show that two Mormon doctrines contradicted each other, but it did show that a Mormon doctrine contradicted a sound argument about the oneness of God. Thus, it is a logical argument, which is what Asbestosman originally said would take for him to leave the Mormon church. Here is another logical argument for you, so you can practice:
1) All people who post on a message board of the religion they left are pathetic
2) Vegas Refugee posts on a message board of the religion he left
3) Therefore, Vegas Refugee is pathetic
I haven't been following this discussion, nor seen your sound argument for the oneness of God.
I can guarantee you have presented no sound argument for the oneness of God in the sense of a reality of a God. What you may have presented is an argument which uses the Bible as authority and the premise that a god exists as well as particulars for that god, is assumed true based upon the claims within the Bible. That doesn't mean the premises which you supplied are really true, in the sense of being a reflection of the world we all experience and observe.
Aquinas wrote:It's obvious, since the argument I cited from Aquinas about God's oneness does not depend on the Bible as an authority, as you hoped. I made a calculated assumption by posting in a message board with the name of a church that at least claims belief in the existence of God, that the premise "God exists" would be agreed upon. But, if you really want 5 proofs for that (none of which depend on the Bible for anything, only reasonable understanding of the natural world) here is the link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (scroll down to Article 3, unless you also want to see the argument that we can know that God exists, then also read Article 2) (or The Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 2, Article 3 by Thomas Aquinas). I doubt, however, you will read any of it, as you obviously seem content with spouting out criticisms wihtout even reading what you criticize (see quoted statement above) and do not welcome anything outside of your stereotypes:
Aquinas wrote:What basis can you "guarantee" anything? You didn't even read anything, as you admit, and if you had, you'd see that you are clearly wrong about many assertions you make, given the argument I posted ealier in this thread. I find it ironic that while you imply you like to think about things critically (as opposed to those who rely on the Bible for arguments), you don't even read what you are criticizing! Great example for everyone of your critical thinking skills.
My quoted statement above is not a criticism.
You have an incorrect assumption that on this message board everyone has a God belief. I'm an atheist, at no time in my entire life did I have a God belief. I will look at your 5 proofs and comment later, it's currently late, tomorrow I'm on a day trip but the day after.
Yes, I'm going out on a limb by guaranteeing there is no transparent proof a god exists. I think it would have hit the news by now, if what you argue for, is a reality, which can be transparently proven to all.