Man is as intelligent as God

[_Bhodi]

DrW,

What a pity it is when belief meets proof. You believe you are a man of the world and know just about everything. Then you are called out and must provide proof. So how does it feel to be a Christian for a moment?

Franktalk,

Sorry, but you will need to explain to me why it is a pity when belief meets proof. You lost me on that one.

Also, not sure that one post makes me Christian (even for a moment). Used to be a Mormon though, and still am technically, I suppose.

I don't claim to know much, but what I do know is important to me because I have tried to take the time to test what I think I know against the relevant physical evidence.

And I do agree with you that evidence (or to use your term, proof) is a wonderful thing.

Your post leaves one to wonder why an individual who values proof does not base his worldview on more fact and less fantasy.

This is honestly somewhat fascinating. As I have said before...

"You did not know what day Sunday was in Arabic.
You did not know the work week.
You claimed that people could not haggle hotel prices.
You did not know companies operated furnished apartment pools in the region for business purposes."

To this you posted a bill (which could easily be reproduced, but let's assume it is legitimate).

If you actually were living in a foreign country, foreign culture, and you learned not even nothing, but negative knowledge...is that something you really want to brag about? If you did not know what 2+2 was, then you don't know. When you think that 2+2=72, then you have not only a deficit of knowledge, you know less than when you started.

How do you explain the fairly significant knowledge gap that exists? You have touted your education, writings, even patents...but you lived in a foreign culture and now know less about the nation than when you went in? And you think this is vindicating? Were it me, I would be more embarrassed to admit I was in a country and actually have negative knowledge than to admit that I was not in the country and made it up. In one case, there is no reason to know anything, you could have been faking it, in the second, you learned nothing and now know even less than nothing, because what you know is untrue.

Why do you think this vindicates you?

[_Bhodi]

So, Bhodi is Belmont, right?

What is with this fear, the imagined boogeymen?

[_DrW]

So, Bhodi is Belmont, right?

Don't know.

Same MO.

Same BS.

You should feel honored, DrW. He only harasses people who threaten his testimony.

Considering the latest version of his silly rant, as posted on this thread, I guess I'm ready to call a "Belmont" as well.

Welcome back, Simon. Do you plan to be here long this time?

We know how you roll.

[_Franktalk]

I appreciate your concern.

However, I cannot put much faith or credence in a "truth detector" that led humankind to the inquisition and which, in the hands of faithful Mormons like yourself, has been used to justify the priesthood ban for Blacks, disregard for the rights of women, polygamy, polyandry, adultery, and fraud and, as strongly suggested by evidence in the case of Brigham Young, conspiracy to commit murder.

Just so we understand one another.

I understand more than you know. And in a way I happen to agree with much of what you said. I will tell you that very very few actually can hear the Holy Spirit to the point of discerning a message. Even Joseph Smith made huge errors. And the men who followed made even bigger errors. But as religious institutions go the LDS church is not so bad. So because so many men did not get it right you wish to toss the whole thing. That is so sad. Because the most difficult thing you could ever do is to walk a spiritual path and actually commune with the Spirit of God. Everything else in the world is easy. To actually let go of the world is such a difficult thing to do. But I know you embrace the world. It is a pity. But if you ever did take that step you would see the world change around you. It would hate you even if you told no one. It is quite the experience. Most people who take the step do not talk about it. It is rare that someone would subject them self to the level of hate that manifest if they actually come out and declare what they have experienced.

And what is more interesting is that the lowest of humans are the most likely to take that spiritual walk. Almost like God planed it that way.

[_DrW]

But if you ever did take that step you would see the world change around you. It would hate you even if you told no one. It is quite the experience. Most people who take the step do not talk about it. It is rare that someone would subject them self to the level of hate that manifest if they actually come out and declare what they have experienced. (Bold & color mine)

Franktalk,

Why the focus on "hate"? Nobody here, to my knowledge, has stated that they hate you, or religionists in general, for that matter.

From what little I know of you personally (e.g., that you live in the Southwest, appear to be about my age, like to invent groundwater pumps, have a beard, worked in electronics (I think), have a skewed understanding of science, and believe in the Mormon God) I would certainly have no reason to hate you. In fact, I think you and I would have a lot in common and could have some interesting conversations were we to meet in person.

You disagree with me on religion and basic worldview, but that happens to be the case with the majority of people with whom I come in contact, even many in my own family.

My worldview differs from yours in terms of how one decides what is real. I prefer to test my beliefs against the evidence and thereafter try to make decisions based on proven facts and probable outcomes.

If you are like many faithful Mormons I know, and judging by your contributions on this board, you make decisions based on what you have learned from the Church and Church leaders, many of whom, as you have just stated, have failed miserably as examples of how humans should best conduct themselves.To you, if it "feels right" it must be right.

You find comfort in the unfounded belief that there is a better existence after this one, even though there is overwhelming physical evidence that there is really no such afterlife.

I find comfort in the fact that I am able to square my beliefs with the evidence and am not burdened with unfounded and time wasting superstitions. Rather than just get along in this life with the unfounded hope of something better in the next, I believe that this life is all we have and we really need to make the best of it, not just for ourselves, but first for our families and loved ones, and then for others, as well.

In trying to understand why folks like you and other faithful Mormons have such little regard for getting science (and objective reality in general) right, it is becoming clear to me that, for believers, it doesn't really matter that much whether they have it right or not. They believe God will take care of it in the end and so do not feel it so important that they themselves get things right.

While I may at times express annoyance or frustration with the way in which you improperly invoke science as justifications for your beliefs, there is no hate, Franktalk, just a strong difference of belief in what constitutes reality.

My reality rests on facts as developed by a rational approach to evaluating physical evidence. Your reality rests on faith, which is not rational. It is unfounded belief.

[_ludwigm]

I believe that this life is all we have and we really need to make the best of it, not just for ourselves, but first for our families and loved ones, and then for others, as well.

... and not to waste this only life for any unfounded, unverifiable, undemonstrable other lives - be it called one or three or sevenfold heaven -, written or preached many different and antinomic way.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk,

Why the focus on "hate"? Nobody here, to my knowledge, has stated that they hate you, or religionists in general, for that matter.

I was speaking of Biblical hate that the world has against people who take the spiritual walk. I was not talking about you or the people on the boards. I do get some negative posts but that is expected from people who have strong personalities. I much rather have a conversation with someone I disagree with than stand around with a bunch of yes men.

Here is what I mean.

Joh 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

Sorry I was not clear. I thought you knew more about scripture than you do.

[_Bhodi]

So, Bhodi is Belmont, right?

Don't know.

Same MO.

Same BS.

You should feel honored, DrW. He only harasses people who threaten his testimony.

Considering the latest version of his silly rant, as posted on this thread, I guess I'm ready to call a "Belmont" as well.

Welcome back, Simon. Do you plan to be here long this time?

We know how you roll.

I understand why you would want to try to cast me in a known role, it alleviates you from having to explain anything or confront your lack of knowledge. It is a shield, a diversion, and a way to run away from an uncomfortable situation. I understand, even empathize, but it is incorrect. If you like, you can read my blog, it would be bizarre for me to have a three year blog simply to mask an identity now.

http://liberalmormon.wordpress.com/

So, since I am unaware of any zen Mormon apologists, and a quick search of this forum does not seem to indicate anyone who would fit that bill, you could continue to attempt to hide, or simply confront the uncomfortable.

Did you learn as little of Mormonism as a Mormon as you did or the Middle East while you were claiming to be in Oman? I do not understand both why you learned so little, and why you tried to fake knowledge?

[_DrW]

Considering the latest version of his silly rant, as posted on this thread, I guess I'm ready to call a "Belmont" as well.

Welcome back, Simon. Do you plan to be here long this time?

We know how you roll.

I understand why you would want to try to cast me in a known role, it alleviates you from having to explain anything or confront your lack of knowledge. It is a shield, a diversion, and a way to run away from an uncomfortable situation. I understand, even empathize, but it is incorrect. If you like, you can read my blog, it would be bizarre for me to have a three year blog simply to mask an identity now.

http://liberalmormon.wordpress.com/

So, since I am unaware of any zen Mormon apologists, and a quick search of this forum does not seem to indicate anyone who would fit that bill, you could continue to attempt to hide, or simply confront the uncomfortable.

Did you learn as little of Mormonism as a Mormon as you did or the Middle East while you were claiming to be in Oman? I do not understand both why you learned so little, and why you tried to fake knowledge?

Bhodi.

Thank you for the link to your blog and for the little personalized greeting posted there. After reading a bit on your blog, I believe it is more likely than not that you are not a Simon Belmont sock puppet.

So, I hereby retract the "Belmont" call made above, and apologize for same.

It will be interesting to see if Molok and the Doc Cam come to the same conclusion, because from your writing style and approach on this board, you certainly remind one of the erstwhile Bro. Belmont.

You would make a great MDB doppelganger for Simon.

[_Bhodi]

Bhodi.

Thank you for the link to your blog and for the little personalized greeting posted there. After reading a bit on your blog, I believe it is more likely than not that you are not a Simon Belmont sock puppet.

Naturally not, but that was secondary to the overall purpose of trying to avoid dealing with the lack of knoweldge of the region in which you supposedly lived. Could you address this now that your accusation is determined Old Testament be baseless?

Consider...

You claim to have lived in the Middle East, but demonstrate negative knowledge of the region.
You claimed I was someone, and it should be rather clear from reading the posts of Simon Belmont, that I am not he.

Your powers of discernment are clearly somewhat suspect. These are only two data points, but there seems to be little in the way of logical deduction or analysis in your commentary. 0 for 2 is hardly a good starting point.