Flip Side of the Coin

[_KevinSim]

Kevin. I would like to see you answer your own question.

I'm not an atheist. I don't have to work for the benefit of the human race.

I recognized a long time ago that personally taking on responsibility for the welfare of the whole human race was beyond me. But somebody has to take that responsibility. So I chose to believe in God, who in turn tells me what I must do to accomplish my share of caring for the human race. It's been a great partnership so far.

[_just me]

Kevin. I would like to see you answer your own question.

I'm not an atheist. I don't have to work for the benefit of the human race.

I recognized a long time ago that personally taking on responsibility for the welfare of the whole human race was beyond me. But somebody has to take that responsibility. So I chose to believe in God, who in turn tells me what I must do to accomplish my share of caring for the human race. It's been a great partnership so far.

Actually, I changed my mind about what I was going to say.

Your comment above is one reason I think religion is so dangerous.

[_Themis]

I don't buy that so many of the world including many good LDS who grew up in the church and were active believing while praying are somehow not willing to to follow God's answer.

How many people are we talking about? Has anyone taken a count, or made a well-documented estimate?

Experience tells me this. It also tells me you are hiding behind it. Like I said, it's an excuse for why so many do not get and answer or don't get the same answer.

What does inconsistency have to do with anything?

Seriously. You think inconsistency has nothing to do with anything? I suppose this is also done to protect belief.

I would have to disagree with you; the answer I got in 1976 was very definitive; it wasn't vague at all.

Sorry but your posts don't really support this. You have to convince yourself afterwards over and over again and you still even after this have doubts(opposite of sure by the way). You even say you choose to believe. Doesn't sound very definitive.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it's possible to document that precisely 5 million people have asked God if the LDS Church is true, five or more years ago, and none of them have gotten a response. How do you go from there to the conclusion that the good God I've described doesn't exist?

I am basing it on your descriptions in this thread on what you think a good God would do and not do. Since he is not doing some of those things he therefore does not exist.

[_Themis]

Themis, why do you think that's unreasonable?

Again exereince. Most of the world is following what they think is true, so they would follow God instructions if he ever contacted them.

Like me, for example. I was living a good LDS lifestyle, keeping the commandments, going to church, going to seminary, saying my prayers. My seminary teacher urged us to pray about the Book of Mormon, so I did; I asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and I got a good feeling. And every time I did that I knew I couldn't count on the good feeling as having come from God. Because each time I had wanted a good feeling.

There may be a lot of Latter-day Saints who ask God the question I've been referring to. But it's very easy for me to believe that nowhere near as many are any better at being ready for any answer than I was. It was hard work getting to the point where I would accept either a yes or a no answer.

Many LDS are smart enough to realize things like good feelings are coming from themselves and not God. This is not really God answering a question. It's the rest that fall for this and then spend their time like you trying to convince themselves it really was God. Quite understandable if you look at the social and cultural reasons for it within a group like the LDS. AS far as LDS member being ready for a yes answer. Of course they are. IF they are active and trying to do good and follow what they are taught in church they are more then ready for a yes answer to things like the Book of Mormon. Reality is that it is a made up story, and many of us need to keep telling ourselves it is true to maintain belief. Remember that teaching in church about losing your testimony if you don't share it. I see just how telling that is now.

[_RockSlider]

I'm not an atheist. I don't have to work for the benefit of the human race.

All I can say is Good God.

[_RockSlider]

I recognized a long time ago that personally taking on responsibility for the welfare of the whole human race was beyond me. But somebody has to take that responsibility. So I chose to believe in God, who in turn tells me what I must do to accomplish my share of caring for the human race. It's been a great partnership so far.

Yes, what a great partnership, for the best good of mankind you support!

http://www.shopcitycreekcenter.com/

Once again, Good God

I don't think I can converse with you further.

[_Cylon]

I can't control what I believe in, at least not that directly. My beliefs are an output of all the different experiences I've had. They can be changed, but not just by me deciding to change them. I cannot at this moment just choose to believe in Santa Claus. I could say I believe in Santa Claus, but that would not make it true (although if I repeated it enough to myself it's certainly possible that I could become to believe it). But it's not nearly as simple as just choosing what to believe in. You can choose to some extent what information you expose yourself to, and you can choose to disregard certain evidence if you think it's unreliable, but our beliefs are shaped by much more than just our conscious thoughts about a subject.

By this measure I'm an atheist. If I were purely governed by what seems logical to me I would be an atheist. Yet I stand before you a firm believer in a good God that controls the universe. I guess I feel like I am more than just the summation of all things that seem logical to me. I can will, and I have willed to believe in God, the doubts that plague me from time to time notwithstanding.

It's an uneasy association, granted, me deciding that I will believe, and parts of my mind saying, "But what about this?" and, "What about this?" But I've found it's a workable alliance, and by now I'm very used to it.

I never said that beliefs are purely governed by what's logical to us. I said it's an output of our what we're exposed to in life, and our logical cognition is a part of that, but certainly not all of it. There's also emotional inputs and social pressures and subconscious instincts. For you, at this point in time, all of those inputs, along with your conscious desire to believe in God (and that one is substantial, don't get me wrong) have added up to a belief in God despite your logical misgivings.

If you still think that it is entirely due to your will, try the thought experiment I mentioned in my previous post. See if you can will yourself into believing that Santa Claus exists as a real magical being that dwells in a hidden arctic village and delivers presents to children worldwide on Christmas Eve. If you can, then your brain is radically different from mine and most humans'.

[_Cylon]

Look, I'm willing to discuss things with you regardless of our disagreement, but as soon as you start speculating on what I really think deep down, you're not operating on good faith. Who the hell are you to tell me what my conscience says?

Sorry about that, Cylon; I worded that badly. I don't see myself so much as one who declares to others what their consciences say and don't say. Rather, I should just ask you questions about your conscience, and maybe point out some things that I think are odd in the answer you give me.

Apology accepted.

Trust me, as far as dealing with the implications of the possibility that there is no God and no afterlife, the thought that I might not build something that will outlast the probable lifespan of the universe is not even on my radar.

Why isn't it on your radar?

Because it's an artificial moral constraint that, as far as I can tell, you've made up. Within Mormon theology, we'll all be part of something eternal no matter what we do, simply because we're considered to be uncreated, eternal beings at our core that will never stop existing. And since I've rejected Mormon theology, I'm not even bound by that. I'm unaware of any secular moral philosophy that requires "building something that will last forever" as one of its tenets.

Now, I'm not in any way saying that our current understanding of the universe is comprehensive and can't be wrong, but until there is evidence to say it is, I'm going to go with the best evidence we have.

Even when the "best evidence we have" indicates to you that preserving some good things forever is impossible? That doesn't seem like a very optimistic approach.

Yes, even then. There's no requirement that reality be optimistic. My worldview allows me to accept truths that are unpleasant. If yours doesn't, then I submit that truth is not your overriding concern.

All of your arguments here have been based on a set of axioms (God exists and his intent for us is to build things that will last eternally) that you haven't even tried to prove.

You've mistaken me. God existing is not an axiom I'm asking anybody to believe in. But our need "to build things that will last eternally" very much is. I don't think we should obsess about it. We can build many things that will only last for finite periods of time before we ever get around to beginning to build the things we want to last forever.

Okay, scratch that first one, then. But your remaining axiom is still unfounded. Why must our creations last forever for us to be moral beings?

But if your conscience doesn't require you to at least think about what it would take to build some things that will last forever, then how long a space of time does your conscience require that the things will last that you build for future generations of humanity? Does it just require you to build things that will last until all your grandchildren are dead (assuming you have grandchildren)? Or your great-grandchildren? How long does your commitment to the welfare of humanity require you to build things that will provide benefit to humanity?

My aspiration would be that we should try to do things that will benefit humanity for the longest time possible. If "forever" turns out to be impossible due to the laws of physics, or if I or any other human prove to be inadequate to the scope of the task, I don't see that as a reason to scrap the whole enterprise.

[_Drifting]

What do you say to those people, asking the same question in the same way as you did, to whom God replied with a no?

I say nothing to those people; I know of no good reason to believe any such person exists!

Exactly.

[_KevinSim]

For the LDS God yes.

Themis, are you saying that other ideas about deities make those other deities more likely to exist than the LDS deity is likely to exist? If so, what are those other ideas about deities?