Here's hoping nobody tries to start an argument. P
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually i wanted to start an argument not in a bad way then again when i listened the man from video it's no different than any other religion. So i lost my interest. :p
Comment has been collapsed.
we would never do such a thing :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu4y7x9LRyY
but the op should stick with their convictions - whatever gets people through the day I say :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Argument and religion don't belong in the same sentence. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
P.S. There's no giveaway here, but if I can I'm thinking of making a special giveaway that may require learning a bit more about the Mormon Church.
You want to force your religion in others.
Comment has been collapsed.
So if someone put 1 ratio of real value on their giveaways, they are forcing you to give something away?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand your question. Anyway my point they don't force you to join the giveaway so they can't force anything. You can always ignore it if you don't like how you get there. So my bad i took a bad example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but it's a way of forcing your religion, I'm sure people who are not religious will want to join as well. Do you disagree?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, in that case they just need learn about a religion. OP doesn't say you need to be a part of that group to join. They just want to learn about their culture. I don't like religions too but i watched the video they shared. If it was a GA requirement i have no problem with it. I learned something along the way.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get your problem. We had quizzes about countries like Israel or Hungary, we had quizzes about waifus and weird music. But oh noes, there might be something to learn about religions too! That's enforcement!
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe, I'm just pissed off with religious people and religion. I can't stay quiet when someone is advertising his religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, advertising a religion bothers you, but advertising other things is OK? I mean, everything around is advertised, and much of it is harmful. We advertise cigarettes, alcohol, twinkies, guns, porn, lousy movies, Beanie Babies... Every advertisement promises something that will fulfill some (or all) of your needs and desires. Why shouldn't someone advertise their religion? There are all these people out there searching for a way to satisfy themselves. What's wrong with telling people, 'This religion I am part of is pretty great, and I think it might appeal to you. It might satisfy some of your needs."
Comment has been collapsed.
Your argument is really good. I don't have an unbiased answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, if someone thinks he is helping other people with his religion, and really think that he is doing something good, I can't complain.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you can't complain when the JW's are knocking on your door Sunday morning, they just want to help to save you. You can't complain when the WBC is disrupting funerals, they think they are doing something good. You can't complain when suicide bombers kill, they think they are doing the right thing. You can't complain when Nazis kill Jews, they just want a pure race.
Well, I think you could and should complain when someone is acting upon an ideology you don't agree with.
And as for the "really good argument" above, replace the word religion with any other ideology and see if it's still a good argument for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstood my comment. I meant it only for people advertising their religion in a acceptable way. (no violence) If you apply what he said to other ideologies, it's not going to work. If someone knocks on my door on Sunday morning, I'll ask them to go away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your argument is really good. I don't have an unbiased answer.
Surprise plot twist. :P
But yeah, SG has regularly been tied to exclusive events, themed groups, or even as a way of posting exclusive promotional giveaways for a non-SG related site (and as giveaways for a certain nationality or ethnicity have been shown to be acceptable, religion really doesn't stand out as being any different an inclusion from one based anywhere within that similar scope of mentality which exists between raw nationalism and simple cultural pride.) Technically, since SG hate speech oversight still remains woefully limited, you could even make a SG-related group dedicated to outright bigotry and- as far as I know- get away with it. Certainly, anything short of that has been established as being fully within site expectations- and when we're talking about geekdoms, be they related to fictional, real, or ambiguous subject matters, the nuances really don't stand out until you reach that point of intolerance.
Put more simply- a Superman geek club could be delusional and hostile just as strongly as a religious group may be (conversely, a religious group could be just as honestly, simply enthusiastic as a Superman club would be presumed to be). So could a pottery appreciation group [vehemently insisting that pottery is the only true craft and all other arts and crafts must be eradicated! =O]. Certainly, religion tends to overwhelmingly have more adverse effects in the real world than a comic book club- but as far as SG is concerned, the difference is negligible.
Religion is packed with social indoctrination and manipulation, and with real world injustices, in a way that other subject matters aren't. There's no shame in being agitated over such matters. And if it gets into the scope of bigotry or harassment, then yes, by all means, challenge SG's acceptance of such. But until then, you're associating that overall stress with what is, within the scope of SG, just another fandom. You really can't discriminate against one without discriminating against all of them, unless definitively negative elements like bigotry are openly associated with the group in question- and in that, the specific members of the group tend to define such mindsets more than the associated topic of any group does [outside, of course, of openly bigoted associations].
In summary, the energy you're spending worrying about the validity of a religious group would be much more constructively spent helping me argue something truly important: The superiority of muffins over cupcakes. (Or for you geekdom traditionalists, Star Trek over Star Wars.) 'Tis surely a vastly more important topic. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really comment about this but you were the 100th person to blacklist me, so thank you genuinely, my OCD was kicking in super hard ^_^
Although now I'm at 101 already so (⁎˃ᆺ˂)/
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you do anything to 'trigger' it? :D
EDIT for visitors from later life: asked this monster here some harmless questions, got blacklisted. Revenge-blacklisting because that's the cool thing to do.
Please don't believe the fake self-victimization of the feline perpetrator.
Comment has been collapsed.
I respected someone else's right to post about their religion and tried to defend them from bashers \o/ I'm the worst.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just discovered that I shared your fate and for the same reason. What a coincidence that we have blacklisted each other too!
Ah, what would we do with our precious time, if we wouldn't stir bl dramas for petty reasons. :D
Edit: Took you from mine, so that you are back to those nice 100!
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't escape my fate 101102
Comment has been collapsed.
I only blacklisted you because I found you did. I have no beef with you, but let's not pretend to be the victim.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just noticed I was blacklisted too, but that was expected. I'm surprised you 2 were blacklisted, since none of you insulted them as far as I can tell. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah... I don't think I insulted anyone either. I am guessing it is because of my comment on scientific process and hypotheses formulation--unfortunately I wasn't being rude and there is no other way to say it. But when my black list count went up oddly I knew it was this person right off the bat even when i didn't exchange a single word with this person. I mean I don't care being blacklisted but to see him/her claiming to be blacklisted for defending rights is just too funny.
Comment has been collapsed.
It / she / he is now even angry-shitposting against what I write in other unrelated threads, https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/dbRDIA9
Steamgifts is the American highschool I never got to attend.
Comment has been collapsed.
And they were trying to play the victim earlier by comparing me to someone who has harassed them in the past when it now looks to me like that's exactly what they're doing to you. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
you could even make a SG-related group dedicated to outright bigotry and- as far as I know- get away with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer muffins. Especially banana chocolate chip ones... mmmmm...
Comment has been collapsed.
-
when did he say he is not bothered with all those other things? that's just your assumption.
-
how is a bad movie the same as religion? i would consider the movie mildly annoying at most, while religion is one of the worst influences humanity has ever seen. it's simply incorrect to treat all bad things equally. an extreme example: how would you react if someone advertised racism here? would you still compare this to a lousy movie then?
-
why does religion always get a free pass? this is a forum. if you post anything here, you have to expect other opinions. if someone tells us about his favorite game or movie, people can go there and say it's absolute shit. no problem at all. but somehow religion cannot be criticized without anyone telling you that you shouldn't criticize it. if you're sticking to your comparisons, then drop the double-standard. allow criticizm, just as you would allow it for movies etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Huh. I haven't said anything about not allowing criticism. I haven't said anything about religion getting a free pass. I'm not sure where you got that.
- Not everything in that list is equal, but they are all advertised. I was asking why religion is particularly annoying to him when it is advertised. Religion is not one of the worst influences on the world. People are pretty bad to each other throughout history, wherever they come from, and whenever they lived - with or without religion. Wars, slavery, and genocide have been waged in the name of religions, because of a desire for land, or - famously in ancient Troy - over a beautiful woman, and for countless other reasons. Men oppress women even without religion. I'm not saying atheists are worse than other people, either. I'm just saying human beings have done awful awful things to each other at all times in all places. And it is more difficult and debateable than you suppose to lay it all at the feet of religion.
- It is an assumption, yes. But not an unreasonable one. A little bit of checking revealed no complaining on his part about advertising other things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because religions cause a lot of harm and suffering in the world whilst not backing up any claim they make. That's why.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, because we absolutely can't see political dogmatism achieving the very same these days (again). And we have never experienced violence or obscure conflicts about football or which consoles we prefer.
Information is never the problem, only how you use it. And to get upset that information about one religion is shared, is already part of the problem and not the solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would rail against the problems you mentioned just as much. Dogmatism is dangerous no matter where it comes from, all of it needs to be challenged. Including religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but if I make a giveaway that you have to be white-skinned to enter that is despicable.
Comment has been collapsed.
The user above you stated that they were uncomfortable with having to read about a certain religion to join a GA. You replied with "But if x restriction is okay, why shouldn't y restriction be, too?", as though all restrictions were the same. I showed you why it is not. If I made such a giveaway, I would not be "forcing" anyone to "be" white, but I would definitely be discriminating. Is it okay to discriminate against people with less CV? Apparently yes. Is it okay to discriminate against people of a different skin color? Apparently no. Is it okay to discriminate against people who haven't read about a religion? That much is up for debate.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would agree with if OP said "If you want to enter you have to be a Mormon" but all they want is you get some information about their religion. Thats why what you are saying is not related. If the topic was what you are saying it of course should be not acceptable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, it's quite a bit more gray area and may even be completely okay. But to be honest, as someone who's been locked in a room for 2 hours per week, every week for the past 14 years to be made to "learn" a bit about the Christian religion, having to "learn" about religions is something I have learned instead to be really wary of.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah i can understand that. There is a very similiar thing in my country about religion. But on an internet forum i could ignore it whenever i feel like it so i don't feel it's forced.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess so. I wasn't the one who said it was forced anyway, and to be honest it really isn't, but I still don't like it. I can ignore it, yes, and I probably will, but it bothers me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Uh, how and where and why does / did this locking up happen?
Comment has been collapsed.
Mm, perhaps "locked" gives the wrong idea although it is technically true. It was at school. Elementary, Middle and High - we always had to have 2 hours per week of "religious education", where they split the class in two, stuck each half in a room with religious paintings and quotes etc everywhere on the walls, and had a priest teach us about our religion. When we were younger if you so much as talked out of turn during these you could get in a whole lot of trouble and be sent to the Principal's office and have them call your parents, though as we grew older it grew more relaxed(but also more disgusting, because we were deemed "old enough" to talk about "social issues" and god, do you not want to be there for that. Although I guess in the end my takeaway from it was positive -- my current group of (amazing, wonderful) friends initially formed only as the "We Will Not Shut Up Even If You Ask Us To When You Say Conversion Therapy And Assorted Disgustingness Is A Good Thing" party)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah. My West German religion classes, uh, weren't like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You once made a GA for Germany region. What percent of SG users that are in Germany aren't white I wonder? 😀
Comment has been collapsed.
For good reasons we don't have statistics about that :)
(The region restricted GA was 0.2% of that user's CV..)
Comment has been collapsed.
How would that be enforced anyways? Having to answer a few questions on an ITH is a bit different from having to upload a picture of yourself or something...
Comment has been collapsed.
You want to force your trolling on others.
Seriously, your trolling has been extremely disappointing from what I've seen, try to make an effort ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't troll. What you've seen is me serious, people always think I'm not serious.
Comment has been collapsed.
No the sad thing is you actually think you're really clever but really you're just another keyboard warrior sitting alone giggling at their computer monitor 🤷
I saw your original posts before you edited them to be 'edgier' before I watched the vid, made me laugh how much you actually care to change it so that people think you're edgy and because no one responded to your original post 😹
And you blacklisted me because you got caught red-nosed being offensive and trolly \o/
Comment has been collapsed.
Is he forcing you to enter his giveaway? No. So your logic makes zero sense.
He's giving away something to those that are willing to learn about something else. Key word = "Willing".
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it'll more likely just be answers you can find on a page of the website, just a bit of reading (or skimming) would be required, no need to even visit a church building, unless you decide you want to, lol. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
not sure if you are allowed to make people do actions or some such to enter a giveaway - I think it was why Gleam was outlawed to a certain extent - but if you want to put a link to a site on the giveaway page itself I believe that is allowed (we do that for our shop) - then no one is made to have to visit to enter - I usually always click on them to show willing though :)
Comment has been collapsed.
He could, there is a lot of giveaways in the forum where you have the link to the gibs only after answering some questions. They mainly used itstoohard site.
Comment has been collapsed.
that could be a way round it - just put it in the puzzle sections though :P - otherwise it may fall foul of the mods :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That was my plan. Mostly like one of those scavenger hunt puzzles, except without the need for google, but it might still be a bit before I find a good game to give away, I don't really want it to just be another bundle game. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
hey we love bundles :P - but sounds good either way :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You aren't allowed to re-roll a winner for not abiding to special rules or requirements. You are most definitely allowed to hide a giveaway link behind a puzzle of some sort which users are required to solve in order to access the giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah - I know - we confirmed the puzzle point above - which takes it outside the realms of the gleam or facebook requirement links :) - it is easy to have missed that in the wall of text above :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Just pointing out/confirming that putting the thread in the puzzles section isn't necessary, although it is more appropriate to do so. The mods won't have a say in this, as long as you aren't required to do tasks other than a bit of research/use your knowledge. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah - but not putting it in the puzzle section - when it would be a puzzle - would just get them blacklists; so I tend not to encourage it if at all possible :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Bump for being weeb and sharing some info on your faith 😺👍
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm probably not like the majority of Mormons, but yeah. It's just too bad heaven isn't full of anime girls, lol.
But after we die our bodies will be made perfect, so no more diseases and stuff, not sure if that includes mental ones, though, but I guess I'll find out eventually, lol. :P
Being honest, though, sometimes the idea of existing forever scares me just as much as ceasing to exist after we die...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, concept of eternity is very frightening for a human brain because we don't arrive to conceive it.
By the way, ceasing to exist after we die is maybe frightrening but we don't remember anynthing before our birth (more exactly before 3, 4 four years old). So maybe we don't exist before and we don't exist after ¯_(ツ)_/¯ It would be sad, but natural, like a life cycle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, thinking about eternity is crazy and stuff, but mostly what I fear depends on whether or not I feel the same way in the afterlife as I do now. That is to say, if the only things I really feel attached to and a love for are anime girls and video games and such, and I would have to exist forever without those, that's one of the scariest thoughts for me...
Though I have no idea what the afterlife will really be like, though Mormons believe that when we were sent to the Earth we had kind of like a memory wipe kind of thing so that we would have to re-learn all that we can during our time here, and that those who do all they can to be obedient and stuff on Earth will be able to continue to progress to become like our God (as in, the Creator of Earth) and eventually be able to become Gods of our own worlds. (Though this is just a very quick description, there's quite a bit more behind it... But it seems like it'd be pretty cool.) But basically, he just wants us to be able to grow up to be like him, lol. ;)
Also, it's really only when I start talking about it that I really see how complicated and confusing it is for people who haven't heard it all before, lol. I've probably been confusing the heck out of a bunch of people, whoops...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm agnostic, so i am not convinced by the existence of God, afterlife, etc.
But if it exists i think it would be a place where everybody feel pretty good and happy, and where no comparison could be made with our material world. Maybe our awareness will be different in a such place.
Anyway, it's okay to be confused about such things, and it's difficult to talk about such topics with only messages.
But it is always a pleasure to talk about such subjects for the lost person I am today about religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't worry about it. i can pretty much assure you there is no eternity waiting for us. so at least you don't need to fear that. there is absolutely no evidence to support this. none at all. joseph smith is simply not a reliable source. especially not, if all the "evidence" he can provide is his own words. your eternity is as probable as valhalla. and we all know we dropped that one a long time ago. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
at the moment it's kinda particular cat dilemma as there is no evidence for non existence
I am not keen on checking though, but I would be far from assuring anyone, one way or another
Comment has been collapsed.
no, that's not the way how science works. you don't have to prove non-existence. in fact, it is impossible to prove non-existence. and there is really no reason to even try.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
if i tell you i believe in unicorns, i can't just say "it's true, unless you can prove me wrong!". if i claim unicorns exists, i have to prove it. the world doesn't have to take anything anyone says as granted. if i can't provide any evidence, you can safely assume there are no unicorns. you can never completely rule out the possibility, but it's kind of stupid to believe in unicorns without even the slightest piece of evidence.
and with religion it's even a little different. here we can't disprove what doesn't exist, just like with the unicorns. but we disproved large portions of the holy books that are tied to the different religions. for instance, it's easy to disprove the Noah story, and we did it with several different methods. so, we have an extraordinary claim with no evidence whatsoever, and we can even disprove parts of the books that the claim is based on - it's pretty safe to say the claim is false.
so, there isn't any real dilemma. at least not from a scientific standpoint. of course, people can still choose to believe in this stuff anyway. but that belief has an extremely high chance of being false. so high, it's simply unreasonable to believe in it.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, not so long time ago, people didn't believe dark matter does not exist, they were even proving that for those who claimed, something is not adding up (they didn't know what yet), well they were (wo)mendon't remeber who now, mendokusai to look of science, and at some point they were proven wrong.
you give example of unicorns, as of this world, so it should be possible to prove existence. same for noah ark, it was said it happened here, well shit, maybe it did not (again, I recall some people found old parts of giant boat in mountains - probably fake though).
But when you go to -if there is some afterlife/heaven/reincarnation - there is no way of getting answer one way or another (matter of faith, some people died for a few minutes, they had visions, if they were delusions from lack of oxy or true visions? we do not know).
it is at the moment kinda same situation with parallel worlds. do you claim with same confidence, there are no parallel worlds?
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 People claiming to be adherents of science/knowledge in this thread are the most close-minded when this "search for Knowledge" by definition means making extraordinary claims which completely turns the way people think about ordinary stuff, like the world being flat, the earth being the center of the universe & so on. Those scientific pioneers were called "stupid" in their time too, it was the same as someone claiming to believe in unicorns 🦄
Comment has been collapsed.
Pressed, much? I have a very open mind, prove something to me and I'll believe in it. The same cannot be said for the majority of religious people who claim that nothing can change their mind and deny any scientific facts that are presented to them.
The difference is that those scientific pioneers didn't just claim they believed the Earth was round because they had faith in it and left it at that. They went ahead to find evidence that supported their claims. Where is the evidence that unicorns exist? You act like calling something stupid is the most horrible thing someone can do. Stupidity doesn't have to be terminal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought there was no point talking to me a buncha posts back 🤔 You just randomly have to post on every comment I make & call everyone stupid 🤔
Obsessed, much? I'll pass, not interested in ignorant scientologists 😬
Ciao 🖐️
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm replying to comments in the thread that I feel like replying to. You're not the only one I've replied to and I haven't replied to all of your comments, don't feel so special, bitch. And how is it random when I'm replying with an argument against your argument (which you have completely ignored, by the way)?
I'm calling everyone stupid? Do you just pull stuff out of your fucking ass? I only called religion and you stupid (you because some of the things you said didn't make any sense - like implying I was trying to dictate the OP's life).
I'm not a scientologist, can you please stop making such false claims?
Ciao, fucktard, don't let the door hit you on your way out, which judging by how stupid you are is 100% likely to happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll have you know that there's no way I'm a b-word I'm 100% feline 😼 Good day 🖐️
Surprising how personally attacking someone is completely fine now on SG, but I guess that's what happens when you don't have clear guidelines in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh well 🤷
I hesitated to post a reply because people like you from SG have harassed me IRL, but you know what I don't care anymore so go ahead 🤷 I'm just laughing at your hypocritical hissy fit 😹
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww "bitch" and "fucktard" offended you? Poor baby. Because you clearly weren't personally attacking me as well. Just because you used fancy words, your personal attack doesn't count? The one hypocrite here is you.
I take "people like you" as offense. Support, please suspend this user, because I'm such a baby and no one can offend me. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
not interested in ignorant scientologists 😬
Is calling other people scientologists a general part of your repertoire, or is that a special one for Rafael, or do you choose to reinterpret the word scientologist into 'person who believes in science rather than religion'?
Comment has been collapsed.
repertoire
all the music or plays, etc. that you can do or perform or that you know:❓❓❓
What does that have to do with anything... unless you want to call me a b-word ballerina? Don't, I have two left feet paws 😿
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't take "bitch" so personally. I'm gay, we call people bitch all the time, it's not meant to be in an insulting way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, maybe you are not a native speaker.
Do you call (label) everybody who dislikes religion and promotes the supremacy of science (that only science is valid) a 'scientologist' (it's a religion / cult)? It is a statement you mean (intend) to be funny, or a statement you mean (intend) to be serious?
Comment has been collapsed.
well, not so long time ago, people didn't believe dark matter does not exist, they were even proving that for those who claimed, something is not adding up (they didn't know what yet), well they were (wo)mendon't remeber who now, mendokusai to look of science, and at some point they were proven wrong.
but the point here is, that these scientists - as you say - saw that something was not adding up. gravity and the known mass alone could not explain the observations. so there were already indications that there was unexplained stuff. they took the data they gathered, applied some math and came to the conclusion that they need to do further research. they applied the scientific method! in the case of the "god hypothesis" there isn't even the slightest hint of existence to begin with. there is nothing to apply the scientific method to. the only exception are the holy books, if you want to count them as "evidence". and science has disproven a lot of that.
you give example of unicorns, as of this world, so it should be possible to prove existence. same for noah ark, it was said it happened here, well shit, maybe it did not (again, I recall some people found old parts of giant boat in mountains - probably fake though).
unicorns - not the slightest hint anywhere that such animals exist. not worth taking a look into unicorns, because there's nothing to look into.
noah - this story has been disproven on many levels. it cannot have happened as described. there was no worldwide flood. we would have signs of that all over the place. geology disproves it, the fossil record disproves it, and other sciences/methods as well. so this is really out of the question. this flood never happened. there is more than enough evidence. if you want to look into it, i suggest Aron-Ra's youtube channel. he made enough videos about it and explained in detail why it could not have happened.
But when you go to -if there is some afterlife/heaven/reincarnation - there is no way of getting answer one way or another (matter of faith
the fact that there is no way of actually knowing something for sure, doesn't make it true. and it also doesn't make it probable. you know, i cannot say with 100% probability that there is no god. but 99.99% is good enough for me. it is enough to confidently say that there is no god. if you want to change that probability in favor of god, you need to provide some evidence. but there is none. see, if i tell you about the flying spaghetti monster, you will probably say i'm lying, and it doesn't exist. and it would be unreasonable for me to demand that you believe in it, without presenting you any proof. right? same with god.
some people died for a few minutes, they had visions, if they were delusions from lack of oxy or true visions? we do not know).
i think we do know. if i recall correctly, this has been studied. people could get those "visions" by applying certain conditions (drugs, lack of oxygen, whatever). i would have to read this up again. but i can at least tell you one thing - personal experience one of the weakest kinds of evidence you can provice in science.
Comment has been collapsed.
personal experience [is] one of the weakest kinds of evidence you can provice in science.
I'd say both personal experience and scientific studies aren't necessarily reliable, considering how rampant things like https://www.rt.com/usa/359127-sugar-industry-faked-research/ are. Unfortunately "how do you know this guy isn't lying" is the same problem as "how do you know this corporate-funded study is in any way truthful". In a world of fake news and fake studies and fake science and fake journalism and fake religions, what do you propose as a litmus test to know who to even believe anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
that's really not the same. personal experience is never something you can rely on in science. but scientific studies are, even if there are some black sheep now and then.
Comment has been collapsed.
but the point here is, that these scientists - as you say - saw that something was not adding up. gravity and the known mass alone >could not explain the observations. so there were already indications that there was unexplained stuff. they took the data they gathered, >applied some math and came to the conclusion that they need to do further research. they applied the scientific method! in the case of >the "god hypothesis" there isn't even the slightest hint of existence to begin with. there is nothing to apply the scientific method to. the >only exception are the holy books, if you want to count them as "evidence". and science has disproven a lot of that.
I myself don't consider holy books or apocryphs as evidence, but YOU mentioned that science disproved a lot, which means, not all of them - so scientific method was applied to all of them (I am almost sure of that, many people want to to that even not for science but for fame) and couldn't? (somehow)
unicorns - not the slightest hint anywhere that such animals exist. not worth taking a look into unicorns, because there's nothing to look > into.
noah - this story has been disproven on many levels. it cannot have happened as described. there was no worldwide flood. we would > have signs of that all over the place. geology disproves it, the fossil record disproves it, and other sciences/methods as well. so this is > really out of the question. this flood never happened. there is more than enough evidence. if you want to look into it, i suggest Aron-Ra's > youtube channel. he made enough videos about it and explained in detail why it could not have happened.
well, can you rule out some genetic freak/weird crossbreed/genetic modification and that it will be (was already made no publicly) called unicorn? these days you never now. but as mythical creature, I do not believe it - but that does not make me right automatically
as for noah - well I do not believe nice bible story - on the other hand I do not believe most of the kings scribes from not so long ago even. I do not like that people like to take some things literally from those - as you call it - holy books, and others as parallel. I would not believe any thing directly, especially when the language is recreated and no living native is alive and no 'manual' is available. So it could be local (local as for let's say continental) flood, or not - don't care actually
the fact that there is no way of actually knowing something for sure, doesn't make it true. and it also doesn't make it probable. you >know, i cannot say with 100% probability that there is no god. but 99.99% is good enough for me. it is enough to confidently say that >there is no god. if you want to change that probability in favor of god, you need to provide some evidence. but there is none. see, if i >tell you about the flying spaghetti monster, you will probably say i'm lying, and it doesn't exist. and it would be unreasonable for me to >demand that you believe in it, without presenting you any proof. right? same with god.
what is this scientific method you used for claiming the 99,99%? out of hat? :)
and actually I like the IDEA of FSM and Cthulu :P
agree that personal experience is least 'evidential' method, but you would have to agree that science was wrong many times, and over time, with growing knowledge, better methods and equipment, science was proven wrong, by science. So what we know now, even if proven scientifically, cannot be taken as absolute.
why did not you respond to string theory and parallel worlds? did not suit the rest of response? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I myself don't consider holy books or apocryphs as evidence, but YOU mentioned that science disproved a lot, which means, not all of them - so scientific method was applied to all of them (I am almost sure of that, many people want to to that even not for science but for fame) and couldn't? (somehow)
what? ^^ of course you cannot disprove everything in the holy books. some of it might be true. there is not only mythical, super-natural stuff in there. if it says "joe went to bed early", this is not really something you can disprove. and honestly, it's not something you need to disprove. it doesn't serve a purpose anyway. i thought that was obvious.
well, can you rule out some genetic freak/weird crossbreed/genetic modification and that it will be (was already made no publicly) called unicorn? these days you never now. but as mythical creature, I do not believe it - but that does not make me right automatically
well, it kind of does, actually. let's drop the unicorns. let's go over to the flying spaghetti monster (which has more in common with god than unicorns). the flying spaghetti monster has properties that directly contradict nature as we know it. based on our knowledge it can't possibly exist. same as god. so if you say you don't believe the flying spaghetti monster exists, you're absolutely right. you have no reason to believe it. the possibility of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster is not 50/50, you know. ^^
as for noah - well I do not believe nice bible story - on the other hand I do not believe most of the kings scribes from not so long ago even. I do not like that people like to take some things literally from those - as you call it - holy books, and others as parallel. I would not believe any thing directly, especially when the language is recreated and no living native is alive and no 'manual' is available. So it could be local (local as for let's say continental) flood, or not - don't care actually
well, if we assume the holy books might be full of translation errors, then they are not a valid source for the god belief anyway. ;)
what is this scientific method you used for claiming the 99,99%? out of hat? :)
yeah, that was just some number i made up. my point was, the probability is not 50/50. god is improbable, because his properties completely go against all our observations of how the world works, and the main "evidence" for his existence - the holy books - are in part disproven and simply not reliable.
agree that personal experience is least 'evidential' method, but you would have to agree that science was wrong many times, and over time, with growing knowledge, better methods and equipment, science was proven wrong, by science. So what we know now, even if proven scientifically, cannot be taken as absolute.
no, it cannot. but that's the beauty of science. it adapts. nothing is absolute. if new evidence comes in, it is accepted by the community. religion is the exact opposite. ^^
why did not you respond to string theory and parallel worlds? did not suit the rest of response? :P
string theory is heavily criticized, because it lacks any real evidence. but at least the math adds up. so if i had to choose, i would rather believe in string theory than in god (for which exactly nothing adds up). ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you should think about life as the test it's meant to be, even if just for a second. If it was proven that God existed, there would be no point in life, no one would have to have faith. People have seen God, so they know he exists, but like you said, that isn't evidence enough for the world. Though of course, in the scriptures/holy books even some people who had seen angels still complained and wouldn't obey God, but still.
And this part is just me, but I don't get how the Big Bang and all is more plausible than divine creators, especially when a God could still use science to create (therefore being the cause).
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you should think about life as the test it's meant to be, even if just for a second. If it was proven that God existed, there would be no point in life, no one would have to have faith.
i don't understand what you mean. how is faith necessary in order for life to not be pointless? does that mean you think every atheist lives a pointless life? i object to that. ^^ my life has meaning. i enjoy my life. and i would argue my life is even better than that of the typical religious person, because i have none of the typical religious restrictions. i have more freedom. i can be happy without a god. no problemo! :)
People have seen God, so they know he exists, but like you said, that isn't evidence enough for the world.
well, you don't know that. you only know some people claim they did. you don't know if it's true. and this is really not considered scientific evidence.
Though of course, in the scriptures/holy books even some people who had seen angels still complained and wouldn't obey God, but still.
if god existed, and if he was like described in the bible (always angry, highly immoral and not afraid to kill children), i probably would also think twice before obeying such an entity.
And this part is just me, but I don't get how the Big Bang and all is more plausible than divine creators,
that's easy: there is actual evidence for the big bang. but none for any divine creators. that simply makes it a lot more plausible.
especially when a God could still use science to create (therefore being the cause).
sure, that could theoretically be true. but then i have to ask again: why would you even believe that, if there is no evidence at all for it? how is it different from believing in the flying spaghetti monster, or Russel's teapot orbiting saturn?
you are part of an extremely young religion. may i ask what you think about the fact that, if you were born earlier or somewhere else, you probably would believe in a different god? or different gods. depending on the time, you would believe in apollo and zeus. or jupiter and neptune. or you would be a muslim. or a hindu. if you claim your religion is the right one, and your scriptures are correct - doesn't that mean 99.99999% of the people who live or lived on this planet are completely wrong? is that plausible to you, that a god makes it so that nearly no one knows the truth about him, and almost everybody dies believing in the wrong god(s)?
Comment has been collapsed.
I just say that it's "pointless" because it's purpose ends when you die, which is barely a not even a jiffy in the big picture. I mean, sure you can enjoy it and do some meaningful stuff, but you'll still die and any "lasting" difference will be gone with the Earth's death. In our religion, we try to focus on things that will continue to be meaningful even after death, for eternity.
And I know that people have seen God, you can try to tell me that I can't or that they're liars, but God has let me know that it's true.
Even the King James version of the bible has translation errors, when we believe it to be the most correct of them. But anyways, that's not what he's really like, based on many revelations prophets have had. Here you can read about the nature of God.
But I don't see how an expanding universe, background radiation, and different elements are more proof of an explosion than a thoughtful creator... If my kitchen explodes and all that's left is a radioactive cake containing bits of everything in my kitchen that keeps growing wouldn't that seem implausible? And wouldn't something have had to happen to cause it? (i.e. a certain omnipotent being?)
I know it's not the best example, but I think it proves my point... That's just my opinion, though, not necessarily the church's.
I've said it before, but we don't believe that all other churches are wrong. Many teach correct things, but are missing parts that we have and don't have the authority to preform necessary things such as baptism and eternal marriage. Sure it sounds like we might be stuck up and such, but we want everyone to be able to participate in them if they're willing. And there are missionaries all around the world helping to spread the truth, 70,946 to be exact, as stated last weekend. God wants people to hear. And even if you die without getting to hear about it, there's a chance to hear it after life, as well. And even then, you can get to heaven without being a member of this church (and it's nearly impossible to get to what most imagine as typical "Hell"), but without the gospel and stuff, it's just not possible to become like God.
Comment has been collapsed.
inb4 - wall of text! xD
I just say that it's "pointless" because it's purpose ends when you die, which is barely a not even a jiffy in the big picture. I mean, sure you can enjoy it and do some meaningful stuff, but you'll still die and any "lasting" difference will be gone with the Earth's death. In our religion, we try to focus on things that will continue to be meaningful even after death, for eternity.
you know, i get that the idea of an afterlife is a calming one. death is scary, and i wish it were all true and we would go to another place after death. to a better place. and on top of that to have a purpose. to be part of a bigger plan. that really sounds amazing. but the question you need to ask yourself is: is the fact that it would be nice to happen any proof that it will happen? or is it maybe just wishful thinking? i hear things like this a lot in these discussions. i say "god is not real". then i get the answer "but without god you have no purpose!" well, this isn't even an argument at all in the discussion. it doesn't help us in any way to get to the bottom of this. to find out whether god is real or not. all it says it "it would be better if god were real". sure it would (provided he is a loving god and doesn't do these horrible things we know from the bible ^^). but that really doesn't make him real. often in debates the christian side talks a lot about what good things the church does. same thing - doesn't tell us anything about whether it is true or not. if i believe in the flying spaghetti monster and do good things in its will - doesn't make it real. ;)
And I know that people have seen God, you can try to tell me that I can't or that they're liars, but God has let me know that it's true.
well, how did he do that? did you see him in person?
Even the King James version of the bible has translation errors, when we believe it to be the most correct of them. But anyways, that's not what he's really like, based on many revelations prophets have had. Here you can read about the nature of God.
well, that is a very short article without anything even close to proof. i could write an article about how evil god is just as believable - even based on the same book. ;)
But I don't see how an expanding universe, background radiation, and different elements are more proof of an explosion than a thoughtful creator...
how can you not see that?? this really boggles my mind. the first things you mentions are actual scientific results. we invested years and years, studied the world and came to the conclusion that these things exist. the expanding universe is not something someone wrote in a book without telling anyone why he thinks it is that way. if you don't believe the universe is expanding, you can look at the data, do your calculations and come to the same conclusion. it is actual knowledge we gathered over time. we can prove that it really happens. how is that not more proof than your thoughtful creator? what is the proof for this creator? right, none.
If my kitchen explodes and all that's left is a radioactive cake containing bits of everything in my kitchen that keeps growing wouldn't that seem implausible? And wouldn't something have had to happen to cause it? (i.e. a certain omnipotent being?)
i see where you're going. but there is a big flaw in your logic. the big bang could have been caused by an omnipotent creator. but that is only one of endless possibilities. we don't know what caused the big bang. there are several attempts to explain this. but we don't know at the moment. maybe we will find out later but - and this is very important to understand - the fact that we don't know, doesn't mean it was an omnipotent creator! this is a very common argument among believers. we don't know - therefore god! i hope you see how illogical that way of thinking is. it really is. again: there is lots of evidence for the big bang itself. what caused it is (yet) unknown. but the fact that it is unknown doesn't mean it was a god.
I've said it before, but we don't believe that all other churches are wrong. Many teach correct things, but are missing parts that we have and don't have the authority to preform necessary things such as baptism and eternal marriage. Sure it sounds like we might be stuck up and such, but we want everyone to be able to participate in them if they're willing. And there are missionaries all around the world helping to spread the truth, 70,946 to be exact, as stated last weekend. God wants people to hear. And even if you die without getting to hear about it, there's a chance to hear it after life, as well. And even then, you can get to heaven without being a member of this church (and it's nearly impossible to get to what most imagine as typical "Hell"), but without the gospel and stuff, it's just not possible to become like God.
ok, that accounts for several competing religions of this time. you say they get some stuff right, and some they don't (because your religion is of course the only true one of the current 4200 different ones on the planet ;) ). but what about before the abrahamic religions? what about the people who believed in multiple gods? what about the old greeks, or the old romans? they believed completely different things? your religion and these old ones have barely anything in common. and what about before that even? what about the time when people mostly believed in very basic, spiritual gods? like weather phenomenons, which they could only explain with a higher being causing them (we now can explain all those things). is it really plausible to you, that a loving, personal god let's almost all of humanity believe in completely different things that have nothing to do with him? you talk about authority to perform baptism, and about eternal marriage. is it plausible that almost no one that ever lived on the planet, and almost no one that lives now (because your particular religion is very young and pretty small) had/has the godgiven authority which you seem to value so much? is it really?
sorry for the pretty big wall of text. ^^ i feel i have to say this, just to be sure: i know we disagree on basically everything discussed here. i hope you still enjoy the debate and don't take anything too personally. it's not meant as an attack on you as a person (you seem to be quite nice), just on these ideas. and i hope i can give you at least one or two things to think about. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Before I can tell you how I know, I've got to say a quick thing. The "Godhead" as we call it (most Christians believe in the Trinity) consists of 3 beings, God (Our Heavenly Father), Jesus (Our Savior and spiritual older brother who carried out God's plan), and the Holy Ghost (A spirit that dwells within everybody, at least initially, that helps with things like morals). The Holy Ghost also helps testify to those who pray for answers, so while it's not going to be enough for someone who only looks at science, it's enough for millions of members of the church and all...
And it may be a short article, but it's a simple thing, it's not like something as simple as "God is our spiritual father and loves us all" needs an 80-page explanation, does it?
And I never said that the universe isn't expanding and stuff, I just said that that's not proof that God didn't create it. Sure it might not be proof that God did create it, but it's just as if not more plausible than any other reason...
And last, in regards to the plausibility of most people not having the authority, there's a period of time after you die, but before "judgement", where people who never had the chance to hear the gospel will get a chance, for one thing. Another thing (though not as much for the ancient religions) is Family History work, where members fill in their family trees and have those ordinances such as baptism and eternal marriage preformed for those who died without a chance to hear about/do them. Of course, those people will still have to accept those ordinances, so it's not like they're forced into it.
P.S. I don't know how to do those quote things, so sorry about that. And this has been a lot of typing when I don't know if anything I've said or can say will make any sense to you, so I don't know if I'll continue any more. We both have our views and hopefully we'll leave understanding the other view a bit more, but who knows?
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry for the late answer, was a little busy on the weekend...
you can do quotes with "> ". :)
Before I can tell you how I know, I've got to say a quick thing. The "Godhead" as we call it (most Christians believe in the Trinity) consists of 3 beings, God (Our Heavenly Father), Jesus (Our Savior and spiritual older brother who carried out God's plan), and the Holy Ghost (A spirit that dwells within everybody, at least initially, that helps with things like morals). The Holy Ghost also helps testify to those who pray for answers, so while it's not going to be enough for someone who only looks at science, it's enough for millions of members of the church and all...
well, it's only "enough" if you are already believing it anyway. i think most people simply believe, because they were told their whole life that they have to believe, and that all this stuff is true. i don't know if you can understand how extremely strange these things are, if one didn't grow up in a religious environment. there are a few exceptions, but most people are religious, because their parents were (which is why you would be hindu if you lived in india, and muslim if you lived in iran).
And it may be a short article, but it's a simple thing, it's not like something as simple as "God is our spiritual father and loves us all" needs an 80-page explanation, does it?
well, if you only want to say this, then a few sentences are probably enough. but then this also means, the article is worthless for any critical thinking person. because it doesn't have any evidence, and it doesn't explain how it comes to these statements. it just says "god does this, god does that". it might be a nice read for someone who already believes in all this, but it's basically worthless for someone who questions this belief.
And I never said that the universe isn't expanding and stuff, I just said that that's not proof that God didn't create it. Sure it might not be proof that God did create it, but it's just as if not more plausible than any other reason...
well, without any evidence it is exactly as plausible as any other reason. (i don't see why it should be more plausible...) so, now we are back to the question i think i already asked, and i think you never really responded to: if god is not more plausible than unicorns, leprechauns, russel's teapot and the flying spaghetti monster, why do you believe in him, but not in all those other things? why are you convinced that Thor, Odin and Zeus don't exist, and why are you equally convinced that your god exists?
a nice saying: there are thousands of different gods. you are already atheist regarding almost all of them. we atheists simply go one step further.
And last, in regards to the plausibility of most people not having the authority, there's a period of time after you die, but before "judgement", where people who never had the chance to hear the gospel will get a chance, for one thing. Another thing (though not as much for the ancient religions) is Family History work, where members fill in their family trees and have those ordinances such as baptism and eternal marriage preformed for those who died without a chance to hear about/do them. Of course, those people will still have to accept those ordinances, so it's not like they're forced into it.
ok, so you can retroactively baptise your dead relatives. that still means almost everyone who ever lived died without it. just think about how many people have lived before the abrahamic religions were even a thing. for the last 200,000 years or so nodoby knew anything about baptism, or the god you are believing in. if you see it in this time scale, the abrahamic religions just appeared in recent history, just a few thousand years ago. so almost every human being on the planet did not know anything about that. only an extremely small subset did. really extremely small. isn't that strange, if you think about it?
ok, the second part says everyone gets a chance. sounds great at first. but what about, for instance, the 10 commandments? aren't those super-important? does someone get a chance, if he didn't even know about those (because he lived in a completely different region at the time and couldn't know about it)? what if some native american killed another, thousands of years ago - not knowing that it is forbidden to kill. do the commandments even count for him? so confusing. ^^
P.S. I don't know how to do those quote things, so sorry about that. And this has been a lot of typing when I don't know if anything I've said or can say will make any sense to you, so I don't know if I'll continue any more. We both have our views and hopefully we'll leave understanding the other view a bit more, but who knows?
well, as you can imagine it doesn't make too much sense to me. ;) my big question is: how do you know? and why do you think your god is more plausible than any other? as i said, i think for most people it's simple conditioning that started as a child. there was a time when nobody believed in your god. instead people believed in other, older gods. or even in no god at all (hard to say what people believed, say 50,000 years ago - although i might see what kind of information we have about this). anyway, it all comes down to a complete lack of evidence. and i don't understand why i should believe in anything if there is no evidence. i don't see why god is more plausible than santa claus. and so far you couldn't deliver anything that would convince me. i enjoyed the conversation nonetheless. if you don't want to continue this, that's fine. i understand. still, i would love to read at least a few more answers to what i wrote here. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You obviously have no idea how science works, please don't claim you do it's pretty offensive to actual followers of science, thanks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
People claiming to be adherents of science/knowledge in this thread are the most close-minded when this "search for Knowledge" by definition means making extraordinary claims which completely turns the way people think about ordinary stuff, like the world being flat, the earth being the center of the universe & so on. Those scientific pioneers were called "stupid" in their time too, it was the same as someone claiming to believe in unicorns 🦄
no, it was not! those people didn't just pull the idea of a more or less round earth out of their ass. they made observations that hinted toward this idea. so they studied it and gained further knowledge about it. and finally they were able to prove it. that is completely different from claiming unicorns exist without even the smallest piece of evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. In previous post you did exactly what you accuse belivers of: made a statement without shred of evidence to back it up )
In science, lack of evidence supporting certain hypothesis doesn't falsify it. It just stays a hypothesis, it's that simple )
it is impossible to prove non-existence
Erm, no. The fact you or me do not know how to do it, does not allow us to claim it's impossible
Noah story
Indeed disproving part of book leads to hypothesis of whole book being false. But it's not only one. For example, priests added whole chapters over time to deity's words to serve theirs ends, but there still are parts as given by god(s). Given kind of religious leaders Christianity had in the past, I find it very probable to have happend. Or maybe deity lied on purpose, to put our minds to a test of critical thinking? Hypothesis as good as others.
Comment has been collapsed.
What? It is almost impossible to prove non-existence. This is because to prove that we have to show every scenario is impossible, which there are infinitely many of. There are some ways it is possible in some special cases but that also relies on certain assumptions that also run into the same problem to establish if we aren't assuming anything. Everyone is free to believe, but that statement about dark matter just betrays lack of understanding of scientific process.
Also, if we are talking about hypotheses, it should be that lack of sufficient evidence to disprove should fail to reject the hypothesis. And "god exists" is a horribly formulated hypothesis because as KillingArts says above. Even if it weren't a religious topic and say GOD stands for some scientific topic, the null hypothesis should state GOD does not exist, and the alternative otherwise. I don't think that is a matter of viewpoint.
I still think as an Athiestic Agnostic, that religion is a good tool for people who need it, and if it serves them, but I had to comment on this.
Comment has been collapsed.
An agnostic says you cannot know if there are deities; an atheist says there are no deities. How can you be both?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you cannot know for sure, but probably not. It's just that whether deities exist or not doesn't matter to me because I've decided I attribute meaning to life and it doesn't have to be grand or need a validation from an external source.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. In previous post you did exactly what you accuse belivers of: made a statement without shred of evidence to back it up )
i did not. i talked about probability. the existence of unicorns and leprechauns is so improbable, it's safe to assume they don't exist. same goes for god. i cannot completely rule out the possibility. but it is highly improbable. so much so, that it simply doesn't make sense to believe in it without the slightest shred of evidence.
In science, lack of evidence supporting certain hypothesis doesn't falsify it. It just stays a hypothesis, it's that simple )
your god hypothesis is not falsifiable and not testable, and therefore in the eyes of many scientists not even a real scientific hypothesis.
Erm, no. The fact you or me do not know how to do it, does not allow us to claim it's impossible
so that means the word impossible does not exist for you, other than for the sentence "nothing is impossible"? ^^
Indeed disproving part of book leads to hypothesis of whole book being false.
i did not say that. but you have to admit, if more and more parts of the book get disproved, that makes the rest of it being legit more and more unlikely.
but there still are parts as given by god(s).
how do you know that? right, you don't.
Or maybe deity lied on purpose, to put our minds to a test of critical thinking?
yeah, that's the typical religious bullshit. you get a holy book from your god that tells you how to live. that is the only truth! then, you realize not everything in there is true. so, what do you do? of course! you still stick to the parts that are not disproven yet, and the disproven parts are intentionally false! it's brilliant! that way the book will stay holy and true forever, since every untrue bit will just be converted to a metaphor or an intentionally untrue part that was designed to test you. yeah, sure... ^^
Hypothesis as good as others.
no, some are valid and some are nonsense. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have any comment on the Mormons, but last October I had the opportunity to visit Salt Lake City for the first time, and it's a lovely city. The down town area is very nice, and the whole valley that the city sits in, with the massive salt lake to the North, is very pretty. I only had a weekend there, but I hope I have a chance to see it for longer in Winter some time; I was a couple of months too early and in a rush. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
as soon as i saw the thread, bro, as soon as i saw the thread
Comment has been collapsed.
It's remarkable that almost every historical fact on that southpark interpretation of the story, is ankwardly accurate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if I remember correctly, it's because South Park was created by a former Mormon, so he takes and uses some church history events and uses those against them. It is a bit weird seeing it from the outside, but there's a reason for everything that happened. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Not true, neither of the creators of South Park were ever Mormon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm, must be thinking of something else, then.
EDIT: Nah, I probably just heard the rumors somewhere, lol. Kind of ironic, I guesss. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
nope - not mormon - and they don't use anything against anyone - it is humour only - and if we cannot laugh at our religions then the world is indeed lost :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I made the news.
Seriously tho this is awesome xD
Comment has been collapsed.
my best friend is mormon, our conversations about mormonism generally end with me pointing out shes a terrible mormon
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that's the fundamentalist Mormons you're talking about...
Comment has been collapsed.
Shes a mormon, i just comment on the stuff like the swearing, the drinking etc you know all the fun shit that I get to do without some religious guilt.
Comment has been collapsed.
All I know is that she doesn't really attempt to convert me and I make cracks about her religion when I'm bored. I make fun of everyone and everything, so it's not like I'm attacking her. Once I asked her what would happen if I went to her church and she's like everyone would be super nice to you. At that time I told her no thank you because that sounds creepy as hell. To me it does, I don't do super happy people. Like it's creepy to me, just be normal and polite, don't go over the top. Scares the shit out of me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it definitely depends sometimes even when I got to church when I'm traveling, the members where I'm visiting can be the kind of over-friendly welcoming committee type of thing, lol. It really depends though, I think most aren't too bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
most mormons do not practice polygamy - but boy do news agencies love reporting that they do - as it sells papers and news articles for them - and no I am not mormon - but this common misconception is a funny one - and to be fair some men probably think that they still all should :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I know I'd be practicing it. And not for the reasons most think. If something happened to any one of us, the others can console each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really, she herself admits that she's a terrible mormon, also I have zero idea why an anecdotal story about my friend who is a mormon, makes that a no true scotsman fallacy. I'm not saying all mormon's are terrible at following the tenants of of mormonism, I'm saying she's terrible at it. I'm not making generalization.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see what you mean now. That is indeed not a fallacy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of the stories abut Mormons are really interesting... I don't remember about Hitler, but we do do family history work where members can do things like get baptized for ancestors who died before they had the chance to hear about the church, however, those people have to accept the work that was done in the afterlife (sounds weird for some, I'm sure, but it's very hopeful for people who've lost loved ones).
Also, the thing with black people is very exaggerated... Tl;dr Yes it was a curse, no, it doesn't and didn't mean all of them are bad.
Way back when the first people came to the Americas (before the explorers), there were four brothers, two of whom obeyed their father who was a prophet (and therefore obeyed God) and the other two brothers rebelled and complained constantly. Those two brothers tried to kill the good brothers many times and were cursed for that so that the good brothers' descendants would know to avoid them (that's probably where what you heard came from). However, there were plenty of times in the many years to pass that those people were actually more obedient than the other, so it was never that those with darker skin are all evil, just that they directly descended from the more initially bad people who's descendants eventually wiped out all of their brother's descendants.
But as far as I know, it's always been taught that God loves all of his children equally as well, he just has different plans for them all.
And if you're referring to Blacks not being able to hold the Church's priesthood for a long time, that's something no one really knows the reason for, it was just what God told the prophets...
Comment has been collapsed.
it was a curse
By providing them With a darker complexion that makes it less likely to develop skin cancer? Well...God's plan backfired :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I use to be a Mormon, I think I was dealt a bad card, and the church I went to was just rude and snobby...
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a pretty common saying along the lines of: "The gospel is perfect, the members, however, are not."
It's true, I'm pretty crummy for a Mormon, the girl and her family who tried to file a restraining order against me are Mormon, etc.
There was even a story in one of the talks this weekend about a drunk guy who crashed into a bank and said to a police officer who was pointing a gun at him, "Don't shoot! I'm a Mormon!" And he was... He was definitely not perfect, lol... :/
Comment has been collapsed.
That's always the way... But since it's where the Brisbane Temple is, they think they're better than the rest... It seems it's when the church is nicer, it always brings the demons out of people...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, It's always kind of sad when there are people like that... But yeah I don't think most wards are like that. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Did they want to protect themselves from evil spirits like videogames and anime girls, or why the restraining order?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ehh, it's a long story, but it wasn't because of Anime or video games, lol. I wasn't nearly as obsessed with them when I was talking to her. But I guess you could say it was because I was kind of obsessed with her, not like stalking or anything, but I guess trusting her too much and telling her she helped keep me from feeling suicidal was a pretty bad idea...?
I don't know, I'm still not really sure where I started screwing up, but I just know I made her life worse and I can't even apologize or anything... :/
Comment has been collapsed.
It's always hard to know when it's a good idea to share your thoughts with another human :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's for sure, especially when sharing videos, a group I'm with (like sharing bad driving to bad parking) and they criticise my video...
Comment has been collapsed.
I do a lot of bad parking nowadays :>
(But 'bad' is also up to the beholder)
Comment has been collapsed.
So you park in 2.5 spots :O , colouring wasn't your best subject in grade 1 ? hehe
As I said I've been picked on heaps.
Lets say person A is ummm James, and Person B is Bob...
If person A did this, Person B did the same, B doesn't get people picking on them, but poor person A, he gets picked on the most. Also picks on his voice, and other things... (The events in this story are true, names have been changed to protect the identities of the people. excluding person A. we loooove picking on him)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more that sometimes my parking isn't entirely straight :>
I think I had more confidence in my parking skills some years ago. I skip a lot of potential spots because I'm not sure I fit in there.
I'm very offended by people using 2.5 spots, especially since I tend to operate cars that need 1.2 spots, not 0.8. In front of the house I dwell in, if you slightly neglect a few traffic laws, four reasonably spaced cars can park. Or if you insist on leaving the legally demanded space towards driveways, it's still three big cars. I've also experienced people parking three miniscule cars with tons of space inbetween, just because they can.
So are you person A or not?
Comment has been collapsed.
I colour in-between the lines LOL. But if the parking is outside your home, or work I don't care. But at the shops (Costco AU gives us really good spaces, and yet, people need 2 spaces?, that's not acceptable)...
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, I'm LDS too :) Nice to see there are others of us amongst the Steamgifters
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I don't mind. Always interesting to learn about stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm mostly agnostic, if that's the correct term. I believe in the existence of a divine power, but I don't know what that is and I doubt that anyone can find out. But because I'm a scientist, I only believe in proof, which can't be acquired anyway about this matter, as I said before. I'm Christian, but I believe that religions try to poison people's minds, so I prefer to pose as an atheist. Yeah, I know, it's totally mixed up. I'm not trying to accuse your beliefs, I'm just stating my point of view. :P I actually like hearing about mythology and theology, which, most of the time, are terms that describe the exact same thing. :P And I also think that people should hear about ALL religions and doctrines before deciding in what (and if) they want to believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi i'm a LDS member as well not hardcore but am ;-)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I was born into a Mormon family, and so that was the only reason for a while, but I continue to participate in the church I guess mainly because I know God and Jesus love us all, and following the the things taught in the church is the best way to say thanks and to be able to become more like them, and while it's impossible for any of us to be perfect, it can't hurt to try. And because they love us, they made a plan so we can and will all live again after we die, and the reason to improve is so that we can ultimately become gods like him. You don't need the church to be a good person, but the church has access to God's so things like marriages can continue even after death.
A big part of our religion is focused around marriage and having a family, because raising a family is probably the best way to really improve and become like God, who is literally our father in heaven and wants us to be the best we can be.
I don't know if any of this really makes sense, I'm not really good at expressing thoughts and stuff, they always go everywhere, lol. But basically, our church's teachings help us get to know God (our true Father) better and be able to become more like him, and who doesn't want to be more like God, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have some ex-Mormon friends, and some Mormon acquaintances. I think if faith helps someone, and works for someone its great, although it is not for me. It seems like a lot of Mormons who go around the world to preach, which I understand they are required to do this in their life, do a lot of good helping people in difficult situations.
However, I do find that Mormon stuff about Egyptian texts talking about what they actually don't say and what not very odd. It is difficult to see how the practitioners reconcile with facts. Also, I don't know why, but I do find a lot of my Mormon acquaintances "in a different world" so to say. For instances one of my co-workers during the Egyptian parts of Arab Spring said "I don't understand why they don't just vote." It may be because it is a more closed society, but then again they are required to travel... or maybe the comment is more attributable to him being American (which I also am), or maybe I was unfortunate to just only meet Mormons like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it's not necessarily required for us to go on missions and preach and stuff, but it is highly encouraged, I guess, especially for young men around 18. I don't think I'm going to go on one, I don't think I could with my depression and stuff so it's a bit awkward seeing everyone my age leave for two years and come back almost completely different while I'm barely doing anything with my life, lol.
As for the comment, in the end Mormons are human, too, and none of us are perfect, I'm pretty bad with world politics, current events and stuff myself...
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe. I don't mind the religion much, but I just don't understand yet how the proven wrong facts the book of Mormon promotes is understood by Mormons. I mean there are stuff in the bible too, and I know that the Catholic church tries to connect with science by having a science research division and what not, although I don't know how successful they are. Yet others say parts of the bible are metaphors or symbolic and what not. But from what I've heard the book of Mormon has straight up wrong facts, and up to now what I've heard is that they tell that what research says is a lie. But with the number of Mormons, I wouldn't think ignoring or saying all else are lies would work, so there must be some other way that the religion is adapting right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well Imnot sure what exactly you mean, but I know that some parts of the Book of Mormon and Bible have kind of weird wording and stuff at parts which are clarified in other places, and that part of the Book of Mormon was lost after they translated it and wasn't later re-translated because the people who had gotten ahold of it could change it and use it against the church.
But probably one of the biggest things about the Book of Mormon is that when you read it with an open mind and pray to know if it's true, God promises that he'll tell you it is. Whether it's just this overwhelming feeling or more like a whisper in the back of your mind depends on the person, but it's almost like the feelings are more important than the words by themselves. But not everyone is open to those feelings and try to pick at any little detail instead of genuinely wanting to know if it's true or not...
Comment has been collapsed.
A friend in school was a Mormon, he had to go on a crusade, he went to Greece and came back with a wife. He couldn't drink tea or something, so that instantly means I'm out 90% of my body is tea.
Each to their own with religion, I was brought up a Christian, went to a Church of England school, Sunday Schools and the works. I'm now totally not religious in the slightest. Don't push your religion on others just as much as you should not push your lack of religion on others is the school of thought I belong to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is believing in irrational things and following a book that promotes intolerance, violence and war without any logical reason necessary?
Comment has been collapsed.
Is believing in irrational things and following about a book that promotes intolerance, violence and war without any logical reason necessary? fixed
I know some people reallllly hate religion because people have pushed it or forced it onto them throughout their life, but if you just blindly hate and push your hatred onto people who do follow it you're acting exactly like the very people you despise, and who drove you away from religion in the first place. You've become intolerant and ignorant yourself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I can't say much about the Book of Mormon, but the other holy books that I know do promote those things. So I might be wrong about this book in particular, but religious people often try to claim that the verses were taken "out of context" or they cherry-pick those verses that they want to be taken literally and those that they want to be taken figuratively, so there's no point.
Is calling religion stupid and asking a question pushing hatred onto people? Wow, I should be careful what I do next then... I don't hate religion, I'm just against it. And even if I hated it, I don't see how that would be a blind hatred, since religion is constantly trying to dictate people's lives, so there would definitely be a basis for that hatred.
People didn't drive me away from religion, a search for knowledge did. And I wasn't even that religious to begin with, I pretty much just believed in God.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your search for knowledge led you to post
Thanks for spreading your stupidity aroundwithout even knowing what the religion is about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You're trying to dictate the OP's life right meow 🤷
OMG do people just not realise they're being hypocritical on the interwebs when they type or what O_o You're literally a full-length robe away from preaching the 'Truth' on the mound of your 'Scientology' church.
Comment has been collapsed.
So they only follow this book of Mormon and not the bible? By the way you are being very rude.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't need to know what a religion is about to call it stupid. They're all essentially the same: silly made up stories and sets of rules told to make people believe and worship a supernatural divine power. Why would anyone believe in such stories, follow such rules and worship such power without any evidence? That's just stupid.
LOL! I'm trying to dictate the OP's life? Let's see...
dictate (verb): state or order authoritatively.
Sure, because "Thanks for spreading your stupidity around." is the exact same as "I demand you to stop being stupid right now."... I can't with your stupidity right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't need to know what a religion is about to call it stupid.Stopped reading right there, thanks for showing me the power of knowledge 😹
Comment has been collapsed.
That's unfortunate, the next sentence explains why I call any religion stupid without knowing what it's about. This just goes to show that you cherry-pick what you want to hear, so there's no point in talking to you. Have a good day or night depending on where you are. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't need to read what you wrote fully to see that it wasn't very smart. That's part of being a knowledgist. People like you are all the same. 😼
Cheers 😺✌️
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, your stupidity just keeps blowing me away. *o*
Comment has been collapsed.
I was talking about religion in that comment. OP might be stupid when it comes to religion, but that doesn't mean they're not smart in other parts of their life. There are plenty of really smart people who are religious, which is something I'll never understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
So when people say you are stupid, because you play videogames, that is not an insult?
Comment has been collapsed.
Jesus Christ, so are you always this annoying? I never said it wasn't an insult, call it whatever you want to call it. I just don't like the way you keep using that term. I would prefer saying "playing videogames is stupid" or "you are stupid, when it comes to playing videogames" instead of "you are stupid, because you play videogames". The later makes it seem like you're generalizing someone's intelligence because of something they do, while the former simply states that something they do is stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood it, as I'm not a native speaker.
But as I read it, you were pretty insulting and I just asked if it is necessary to Insult someone in the Internet, just because he doesn't believe what you think someone should believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't find it that insulting to call stupid things for what they are. If you believe in unicorns, for example, when there is no evidence that supports the existence of such beings, you are just stupid. I don't see that as an insult, I just consider believing in things without evidence as stupidity, lack of critical thinking.
I didn't do it because he doesn't believe what I think someone should believe, I don't know where you got that from. I'm not trying to force my lack of beliefs on anyone here. Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want, but I'm also free to call those beliefs stupid and criticize them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really want to argue, as I mentioned before, but the way I see it, it's pretty crazy to think this world came about with no divine power guiding it.
Comparing it to a cake, it wouldn't just appear after a kitchen explodes, someone has to put the ingredients together and work to make it. Plus, even if cake was made by explosions in kitchens, something would have to cause it...
I'm not saying science is stupid or anything, just that the science we know isn't the whole picture. Religion and science should go hand in hand. After all, who can know more more about anything (science included)!than an omnipotent being?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's definitely crazy to think about how the world came to be, but I think it's even more crazier to think that some divine power created it, because then you have to think about the even more crazier question: how was that divine power created? Did it create itself? And how would it create itself if it doesn't exist yet? Was everything black / white and then suddenly God pops up in the picture and starts creating things? Same applies to science, was everything black / white and then suddenly things started appearing and expanding into the universe that we know today? :P It's really hard to imagine the beginning of all things as we are not used to the concept of things existing without a beginning, and I doubt we'll ever know for sure how everything started.
I have no problem with people believing in God or trying to come up with ways to explain the origin of the universe, that does no harm to anyone. My problem, as I stated before, is with religion, because that does cause harm to people.
The problem with religion and science going hand in hand is that they can't, in most of the issues. Religion claims that the Earth is no more than around 6000 years old, and science disproves that, for example.
Happy cake day!
Comment has been collapsed.
Religion claims that the Earth is no more than around 6000 years old, and science disproves that, for example.
...some religion(s) anyway claim this, surely not all; and thus somebody who preaches that the Earth is only a few thousand years old can be called 'stupid' by rafaelgs18 if they do so without a nice, evidence-backed hypothesis explaining their rejection of the established scientific viewpoint.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the last point, Mormon religion doesn't claim (well, as far as I can tell) that the Earth is no more than around 6000 years old, partially because it was originally created somewhere where time was a different (since our time is based on our sun) and was only put into this kind of time after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
And yeah, with our minds it's pretty much impossible to imagine something with no beginning...
And as for religion harming people, that's a generalization that, sadly, in most cases is true, many religions don't exist to help people improve. But Mormons teach (although most haven't gotten the hang of) tolerance, for example even though we don't agree with same-sex marriage, we aren't fighting against it. We encourage people to try to work through it so they can make a family the way God intended, but again, for people who don't want to believe in that, they're free to leive their lives the way they choose.
And thanks, I did have a pretty nice cakeday. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that hypocritical, though? If you think people are free to live their lives the way they choose, why do you encourage them to live it the way God intended? That sounds to me like forcing your religion on them.
Well, I don't know much about Mormonism. But although I'm against all religions, I do realize some are more dangerous than others.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the only thing is, we don't force it on them, if they agree to listen they'll be taught, and if they don't agree they can go back to whatever they did before and don't have to join.
Comment has been collapsed.
Teach? So you feel like you know the right way that someone should live their lives and they're living it wrong and because you know it all you're gonna teach them? Don't you see how condescending that sounds? "Hey, homosexuals, you're living life wrong, but if you want to listen to me I can teach you how to live it right!"
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure it may sound condescending, but it isn't really meant to be that way, there's always exceptions, but generally families are more balanced having a Mom and a Dad both raising children. That's why The Family: A Proclamation to the World was shared in 1995, describing God's idea of what a family should be. If they agree and think that God knows what he's talking about, they'll want to try and change, which is why they'd be taught. If they don't want to believe in God or his teachings, they can continue their life however they want to.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, that's not true. What makes a family balanced isn't the gender of the parents, it's who they are and how they raise their children. There are plenty of children that have a much better life with homosexual parents than heterosexual parents.
And that's the problem with religion. The idea that homosexuality is a choice and that you can just try and change and become straight is ridiculous. Does that work for you as well? If you want to become gay right now, you can just do that and ignore all the feelings that you have for the opposite sex and force feelings that you don't have for the same sex? Why would anyone decide to become gay in this messed up homophobic society that we live in, where you can be killed for being gay? And do you completely ignore the fact that homosexuality happens in nature and therefore is completely natural? Do certain dogs, giraffes, lions and monkeys choose to be homosexual too?
Comment has been collapsed.
We are aware it's not a choice (like many things, it's more of a trial), and that it's hard at the very least to change, I'm sure I'm not the best person to try and explain it, so here's an explanation from the church's website.
That's why as a church, we're happy to see faithful members who have problems with same-sex attraction. It's not like they're shunned or anything, they're still welcomed.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't answer my question. If you think gays can change, can you do the same and become gay if you try hard enough? And what you're saying is contradictory at the very least, because if you're aware that it's not a choice, you wouldn't believe that we can change. Is it so hard for you to live your life and let people be happy with theirs without trying to brainwash them with your superstitious nonsense?
Did you also completely ignore the point that I made about animals displaying homosexuality and how it happens very often in nature? There are over 1000 species of animals that display homosexuality. I thought only human beings had free will and were able to make moral choices? How is an animal that acts simply on instinct able to disobey God?
Comment has been collapsed.
The mindset/attraction may not completely go away, but people who aren't gay can certainly be "intimate" with members of the same gender, if that's what you mean... And again, we only offer them a choice, if they begin to think they shouldn't be doing certain things and are unhappy, why would you want to stop them? Meanwhile, if they're perfectly happy with their lives and what they're doing, we aren't going to force them to stop, how many times do I need to repeat that?
And as for animals, why wouldn't they have free will? They might not suffer the same consequences since they aren't able to learn the same things humans are, but I don't see how that has to do with anything at all... After all, animals kill each other too, but it's generally not acceptable for humans to do so, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Still not answering the question. Religious people are sometimes worse than politicians... I'm not talking about intimacy, I'm talking about feelings.
You shouldn't even offer them that "choice" in the first place. You might not be forcing them, but you're sure as hell trying to, by convincing them that who they are isn't normal and that they can become normal if they want to.
Sure, because killing someone is the same thing as being gay... I think it's best if we end this discussion here because it clearly isn't going anywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
Science has a bit better explanation to our existence than "one smart guy built this all". Yes, it is not perfect, but at least it makes some sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being closed-minded is about the most stupid I can think of.
Being intolerant is a close second, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Great point. Since religion is both closed-minded and intolerant, I guess that makes it extra stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see myself as intolerant about religion. I don't want to force everyone to stop having a religion. People are free to have any religion they want (depending on where they live) just as I am free to call that religion stupid (depending on where I live). I fail to see how that makes me intolerant, but if you want to believe that I am, ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tolerance would have been if you hadn't commented at all. Instead you chose an insult.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess we have a different definition of tolerance. And it was hardly an insult, but ok. Some people take things on the Internet way too seriously...
Comment has been collapsed.
i'm not curious. i just came here for the drama and a gib but somehow i expected more. seems like ppl on SG are fairly civilized. well, obviously there are always exceptions...but still.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was really nice for a long time, it kind of surprised me... I might close it now to keep more arguments from going, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just came here to see the discussion, and I was pleased to find that it was very civilized, sometimes I feel like SG is a one of kind community when compared with the excessive toxicity of the internet.
I'm not much of a religious person, I'm technically catholic but I go to church once every couple of years. There was a time when I thought that I just had to find the right religion so I went and experienced a bit of a few different ones but now I think that it's more of a personal thing, there's no universal right answer, you just need to find your own... or just stumble through life trying to find one like most do :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Congratulations you are religious and still open-minded.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a great hbo serie with theme about this, "Big Love".
Comment has been collapsed.
This is extremely interesting, but still doesn't answer a very important question.
How do magnets work?
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, yeah, what kind of church is this if we're never taught fully about magnets? XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a fan of religion in general, but have a bump from a fellow weeb. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
seems like sg-trash™ already found its way to this thread to bash OP, which is just sharing info.
nice work as usual, sg-trash™.
Comment has been collapsed.
So this weekend was a semi-annual event thing for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (A.K.A LDS or Mormons) where talks given by leaders of the church are broadcast from Salt Lake City to members all across the world. There was one such talk today that I just felt like sharing to anyone who's ever been taught or visited by Mormon missionaries or been looking for a religion or even just been curious about the Mormon church in general. I'm not trying to force it onto anyone, just thought that there might be someone on SG that might be interested.
Anyways, here's a talk by Joaquin E. Costa, one of the many people helping lead the church around the world. If you are interested and want to hear more, there's a lot of talks on various aspects of our gospel and beliefs on the same site and other information on lds.org (The site and I believe the video can be viewed in many different languages as well, if you prefer a language besides English) . I'd like to say, however, I don't want arguments or anything here, so if you aren't interested please don't try to provoke or dissuade others who may be curious or any such thing, thanks.
P.S. There's no giveaway here, but if I can I'm thinking of making a special giveaway that may require learning a bit more about the Mormon Church.
P.P.S. Thanks to those users who whitelisted me, I'm still somehow on more whitelists than blacklists even after the 30 new ones, lol. :)
Just hope this helped someone.~
Comment has been collapsed.