What does it feel like to be wrong about your religion?

[_Coggins7]

The arrogance comes into play because the topic is essentially unprovable - religious belief. It is certainly provable that if you step in front of a train you'll get hurt.

As is any atheist's claim that their is no God. It is an unprovable, metaphysical claim bereft of any self evident logical weight or empirical support-precisely the situation the atheist claims the theist is in.

Where it stops, nobody knows...

[_amantha]

This isn't an easy humility, and honesty, to have, or to develop, and to allow oneself to experience. To do so opens up the shells that we build in our minds to protect our own cherished identities, and exposes the raw, fleshy underbellies of our minds and personalities and psyches to real, honest, raw truth. And that can be very hard to handle, and certainly isn't very comfortable, much less so the thicker these mental shells have become over time and endless reinforcement.

Welcome to the desert of the real.

[_beastie]

As is any atheist's claim that their is no God.

Most atheists don't assert that there is no God. They assert that they don't believe in God.

[_Sethbag]

Richard Dawkins says that there is almost certainly no God. He doesn't state that there isn't one; he states that there most likely isn't one. He recognizes that it's not really a provable conclusion, although certain of his ideas require that provability not be foreclosed outright - just that we're not there at this time. He believes that the probability of there not being a God is vastly greater than that there is one, and acknowledges that he could be wrong about this. He even rates himself a 2 in the scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is something akin to "there is certainly no God" and 7 is something akin to "there certainly is a God". Interesting how many 7s there seem to be amongst the religious, but how few 1s there are in comparison.

[_ajax18]

No, Nehor, you cannot KNOW you're right. The fact that you think so shows how pompous you are.

Uncalled for and untrue. Maybe you really can't know about supernatural things as we consider the word "know," but he's Mormon and he has a belief system. That belief and knowledge is offered to every person that walks the earth equally. If you don't agree, that's your right, but he has every right to think you're wrong. There is nothing "pompous" in disagreeing or drawing a different conclusion based on the same set of facts. You seem pretty certain in your own conclusions. How are you any less pompous?

It almost sounds like you're trying to bully him into adopting your own line of reasoning with these accusations rather than sticking to the issue.

[_Scottie]

No, Nehor, you cannot KNOW you're right. The fact that you think so shows how pompous you are.

Uncalled for and untrue. Maybe you really can't know about supernatural things as we consider the word "know," but he's Mormon and he has a belief system. That belief and knowledge is offered to every person that walks the earth equally. If you don't agree, that's your right, but he has every right to think you're wrong. There is nothing "pompous" in disagreeing or drawing a different conclusion based on the same set of facts. You seem pretty certain in your own conclusions. How are you any less pompous?

It almost sounds like you're trying to bully him into adopting your own line of reasoning with these accusations rather than sticking to the issue.

To claim to KNOW something that is unknowable is, indeed, pompous. I say the same thing to critic who claim to KNOW that the church is false. They may strongly believe this way, but they don't KNOW.

Nobody can know something that is unprovable.

[_Inconceivable]

I am seeing here that many of us strongly think that it is arrogance and pride that connects a person to their BS (belief system).

I think there are many that might fall within this wide swath of the brush. However, not all fit this category. I didn't.

Over the years, I developed a strong belief that it is not what you belong to (or what position you hold in it) that makes you who you are, it's what you are willing to contribute to it (for good or ill).

When my grandfather was alive, he would always ask me what position I held in the church (he would always remind everyone of his very prominant positions and accollades). I would trouble him by simply saying, "well, one of my jobs is a home teacher and I like it".

One of the last acts recorded of Jesus' was His taking the position of the lowest of slaves or servant: washing the filthy disgusting feet of his friends.

I think it put the accusation of arrogance and pride as part of a true follower of Christ to vapor.

There are those that want to convey their message to us because they believe it will create peace, balance and happiness - even if they are wrong.

Nehor,

We disagree sometimes but I can't see how you fit in the pride and arrogance category.

[_amantha]

Richard Dawkins says that there is almost certainly no God. He doesn't state that there isn't one; he states that there most likely isn't one. He recognizes that it's not really a provable conclusion, although certain of his ideas require that provability not be foreclosed outright - just that we're not there at this time. He believes that the probability of there not being a God is vastly greater than that there is one, and acknowledges that he could be wrong about this. He even rates himself a 2 in the scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is something akin to "there is certainly no God" and 7 is something akin to "there certainly is a God". Interesting how many 7s there seem to be amongst the religious, but how few 1s there are in comparison.

And by God, I think Dawkins defines It something like: An a priori, universal causative agent of greater complexity than the current state of the Universe. By that definition, which I think is what most formal religions believe, there is almost certainly no God. Many theists who are not formally religious, believe, like Thomas Payne, that God is the Universe or Nature. By that definition there is certainly a God, but then why do we require a separate word for the Universe or Nature?

The only creationist argument that makes the remotest sense to me is that God exists outside of the laws of this Universe and therefore cannot be postulated as complex or not. But then, this argument is simply pure faith and you can take it or leave it.

[_guy sajer]

No, Nehor, you cannot KNOW you're right. The fact that you think so shows how pompous you are.

Uncalled for and untrue. Maybe you really can't know about supernatural things as we consider the word "know," but he's Mormon and he has a belief system. That belief and knowledge is offered to every person that walks the earth equally. If you don't agree, that's your right, but he has every right to think you're wrong. There is nothing "pompous" in disagreeing or drawing a different conclusion based on the same set of facts. You seem pretty certain in your own conclusions. How are you any less pompous?

It almost sounds like you're trying to bully him into adopting your own line of reasoning with these accusations rather than sticking to the issue.

To claim to KNOW something that is unknowable is, indeed, pompous. I say the same thing to critic who claim to KNOW that the church is false. They may strongly believe this way, but they don't KNOW.

Nobody can know something that is unprovable.

I disagree. Judging the veracity of LDS truth claims is possible given the extensive access we have to information about people and events surrounding its founding and early history.

Keep in mind also that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims, as well as natural claims (e.g., types of plants and animals) that can be directly tested against a mountain of knowledge about the history, plants, and animals of the relevant time period.

The PofGP claims to be a translation of an ancient text which has been indisputably proven to be something different than what the PofGP claims it to be.

More, I don't think it's arrogant of me to say I KNOW that David Koresh was not who he claimed to be, or that Scientology is a crock of crap. Likewise, it's not arrogant to day I KNOW that Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be, or that Mormonism is a crock of crap.

I can't KNOW that God does not exist, but I can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a lying douche bag.

I KNOW this, not because of any feeling I have or faith (or lack of faith), but because the EVIDENCE to this effect is overwhelming.

[_KimberlyAnn]

No, Nehor, you cannot KNOW you're right. The fact that you think so shows how pompous you are.

Uncalled for and untrue. Maybe you really can't know about supernatural things as we consider the word "know," but he's Mormon and he has a belief system. That belief and knowledge is offered to every person that walks the earth equally. If you don't agree, that's your right, but he has every right to think you're wrong. There is nothing "pompous" in disagreeing or drawing a different conclusion based on the same set of facts. You seem pretty certain in your own conclusions. How are you any less pompous?

It almost sounds like you're trying to bully him into adopting your own line of reasoning with these accusations rather than sticking to the issue.

Nehor cannot KNOW he's right. You agree with that. To think he knows, without any substantiating evidence, things that the rest of us do not know at all, is pompous. He believes he knows the truth and everyone else who disagrees with him does not. That, to me, is pompous.

I am not calling Nehor unintelligent at all. I am pointing out the pomposity of him KNOWING he has the truth while assuming the vast majority of the rest of the world does not. What makes him so special?

KA