Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_mentalgymnast]

I've given a reason for what appears to us to be a very large universe. Isn't that what you were interested in to begin with?

What are the reasons for a small, itty bitty universe anyway? Besides "wasted space"? <g>

There seems to be plenty of room out there in space to make it large...why make an issue of whether it ought to be within certain size parameters that only make sense to you?

I was interested in a reason, but I was hoping for a new, plausible one (it was certainly new, just not very plausible). The thing is, I don't believe there is a reason. It is what it is because it is, and that's it. It's only us humans that have the need to attach some arbitrary reason to everything (comfort... sweet comfort).

The reason it's an issue is that the foundation of most religions (all the ones I know of, anyway) is that life has some meaning, or purpose, and that all of this was made for us and that purpose. But on the face of it, given our relative significance in relation to the entire universe, that doesn't seem true. It's like saying that a human being was created in order to give one microscopic parasite a place to thrive (but even that is too big to fit the proportion represented by this analogy).

Is this reason not to believe in a God who may be very interested in what goes on here on this little speck of rock?

Well, yes... although not the only one. It's one of many.

Hi schmo. I suppose the thing that I just don't get is what size has to do with anything as far as the universe is concerned. For one thing, there may be other life out there. If so, then space is not wasted space. We just don't know...yet. We'll have to continue to SETI around on our butts and wait for them to come tap us on the shoulders a bit harder.

I suppose if I was in your boots I'd have to have some other pretty darned good reasons not to believe in God to try and make this one stick.

Do your other reasons for unbelief bring you a certain amount of peace? It seems that knowing that there isn't a god would really take the pressure off of having to live the good life, and live the good life.

Regards,
MG

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I suppose if I was in your boots I'd have to have some other pretty darned good reasons not to believe in God to try and make this one stick.

Do your other reasons for unbelief bring you a certain amount of peace? It seems that knowing that there isn't a god would really take the pressure off of having to live the good life, and live the good life.

Regards,
MG

Oh, no, he's back in the box and glued the flaps down.

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG...

Do your other reasons for unbelief bring you a certain amount of peace? It seems that knowing that there isn't a god would really take the pressure off of having to live the good life, and live the good life.

Personally, I think trying to live a good and decent life, without doing so for a reward or to avoid evil is a far more meaningful or holy way to live.

It always astound me that some folks think you have to have the carrot or the stick in order to be a good human being. I don't get this sort of reasoning.

The peace that came for me as I stopped trying to make myself believe in the God of Mormonism, was the peace of being able to live in a way that I find holy without trying to make the good bad and the bad good. (Not that everything about Mormonism is bad... there is a lot good)! There came a lot of peace in following what I felt was right/good/true in my heart and mind that I could not find while trying to twist and contort my beliefs into something that fit into the Mormon box.

I read Given's book and felt like it was an attempt to expand the box... In other words, the church is true so how can I make these other ideas that don't fit, fit. He does a little more twisting than most but the box is still the box! (smile)

I still admit that the church may be true (as might Scientology, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or any other mythology or faith tradition)... (I think it is extraordinarily unlikely but who knows?) I do not for one minute claim to know the ultimate mysteries of all of life. What I do know is that the LDS church makes no sense to me whatsoever, does not feel right in my heart, conflicts with my personal experience of the divine/Source/Goodness, and creates unhealthiness in my life.

There is a certain peace that comes from living in harmony with one's beliefs, intuition, personal inspiration, sensory experience, and awareness of life.

:-)

~dancer~

[_marg]

I suppose we are at an impasse.

and later wrote:

As I've mentioned earlier, the Book of Mormon claims to be an artifact from the past which proves that Jesus is the Christ and that God is our Father.

You believe otherwise and have asked for evidence.

You still have some work to do.

Right. So your theory requires the magic of a God for which you can provide no evidence which can be independently verified, this God chooses to help Smith translate some metal plates shown to Smith by an angel again which is not verifiable. The plates contain a story of a group of people who came from the middle east who are ancestors of American indians, yet American Indians's DNA supports they are of Asian descent, not Middle eastern. God helps Joseph translate from a shorthand Egyptian of which no such writing currently exists, or has been known to exist. God even uses portions of the KJV Bible with translated mistakes from s and God gets confused with middle english pronouns and makes mistakes using them. And this story which involves wars with large numbers of people using metal swords ..not a scrap of evidence has been found to verify this.

or we can consider another theory in which no magic is necessary, no God, no angels, no metal plates magicially appearing and disappearing, no need for archeological evidence of ancient people as per the Book of Mormon because lack of evidence leads one to conclude the story is fictitious, no need to concern oneself with lack of middle eastern DNA found in American indians because we can accept the Book of Mormon story is fictitious and American indians are indeed of Asian descent. We can assume one or more men, wrote the Book of Mormon, perhaps with the help of a stolen manuscript from a Mr. Spalding for which there is good evidence. The KJV was deliberately used to make the story sound as if written by ancient peoples. And then the story is passed off as being true history and sacred.

So the first theory requires magic, a God too stupid to appreciate middle english pronouns without making mistakes, too stupid to translate Hebrew without mistakes. We have magically appearing angels, disappearing magical metal plates and complete lack of evidence for all the claims other than by the people who make the claims.

And the second theory, no magic necessary, it's all quite logical, rational and fits with the data.

Yes we are at an impasse. But not because the theories are equally probable. We are at an impasse because of bias, intellectual dishonesty, and perhaps stupidity.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Your moniker is apt. That was a fine display of mental gymnastics if I've ever seen one. Why do I get the feeling that religious types just don't understand the concept behind Occam's Razor?

Ockham was a theist. Didn't know if you knew.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Your moniker is apt. That was a fine display of mental gymnastics if I've ever seen one. Why do I get the feeling that religious types just don't understand the concept behind Occam's Razor?

Ockham was a theist. Didn't know if you knew.

And that has what to do with the majority of religious folk not understanding or intentionally misapplying Occam's Razor?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Your moniker is apt. That was a fine display of mental gymnastics if I've ever seen one. Why do I get the feeling that religious types just don't understand the concept behind Occam's Razor?

Ockham was a theist. Didn't know if you knew.

And that has what to do with the majority of religious folk not understanding or intentionally misapplying Occam's Razor?

Nothing. It had to do with someone saying religious types just don't understand the concept behind Ockham's Razor and then I wondered if Okcham understood it either. Wouldn't that be odd? Oh my!

[_Some Schmo]

Hi schmo. I suppose the thing that I just don't get is what size has to do with anything as far as the universe is concerned. For one thing, there may be other life out there. If so, then space is not wasted space. We just don't know...yet. We'll have to continue to SETI around on our butts and wait for them to come tap us on the shoulders a bit harder.

I suppose if I was in your boots I'd have to have some other pretty darned good reasons not to believe in God to try and make this one stick.

Do your other reasons for unbelief bring you a certain amount of peace? It seems that knowing that there isn't a god would really take the pressure off of having to live the good life, and live the good life.

Even if there is life on other planets, again, a ton of wasted, unlivable space.

Hey, if you don't get it, you don't get it. I don't see how that is, but I suppose if I was in your boots I'd have to have some other pretty darned good reasons to believe in God to try and make this one not stick.

I'll just echo what Truth Dancer already said and add that I truly think it's sad that people think they need to believe in their imaginary friend in order to find inner peace or to be motivated to live a good life. I can think of little that's more pathetic and irresponsible. Comments like this always reinforce my idea that god/devil belief is primarily about escaping personal responsibility.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Nothing. It had to do with someone saying religious types just don't understand the concept behind Ockham's Razor and then I wondered if Okcham understood it either. Wouldn't that be odd? Oh my!

Ok, Scooter's off the hook for having posted the dumbest thing I've read on this site. The newby did it in two posts...


Monkeyboy, of course William of Ockham understood it. He's the guy that formalized the concept. If he didn't understand it then it wouldn't be called "Occam's Razor", instead it'd be "Bob's Razor" or some such. Or are you implying that since someone said "most religious types" means ALL religious types? Because if you are, then you need to learn how to read.

And if that was an attempt at humor... EPIC FAIL.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Nothing. It had to do with someone saying religious types just don't understand the concept behind Ockham's Razor and then I wondered if Okcham understood it either. Wouldn't that be odd? Oh my!

Ok, Scooter's off the hook for having posted the dumbest thing I've read on this site. The newby did it in two posts...


Monkeyboy, of course William of Ockham understood it. He's the guy that formalized the concept. If he didn't understand it then it wouldn't be called "Occam's Razor", instead it'd be "Bob's Razor" or some such. Or are you implying that since someone said "most religious types" means ALL religious types? Because if you are, then you need to learn how to read.

And if that was an attempt at humor... EPIC FAIL.

"most religious types" No one said that other than you. I replied to someone that said "Why do I get the feeling that religious types just don't understand the concept behind Occam's Razor? "

Where's the most?

by the way, I like hooks, and being on them. Wooo hooo..

Oh, and I'm a monkeygal.