Livening things up -- my approach to religion

[Lonewulf]

I recently posted this on the apollohoax forums. I think it might be out of place, and I suppose I sound like I'm preaching, but I think I have some pertinent things to say.

The post was made in reply to Gillianren, who basically said,

But I wonder how all those "all religious people are idiots" types would respond if they knew Jay's religious. I know my faith doesn't tend to impress them much.

Here's what I posted (the reference to Jay is Jay Utah, who argues with Jason, a Mormon):

I don't think religious people are idiots. In fact, I respect Jay's faith, because he's able to avoid absolutism and can keep it from deciding things for me. Also, I can see that he thinks it through and can keep science, religion, and state matters separate.

But no, your faith doesn't "impress" me, depending on what you mean by that. At the very least, I have no desire to convert to any particular faith. Part of this comes with a bit of personal belief, though; given the huge size of the universe and the existence of such great amounts of death and suffering on Earth, I believe that any cosmic force that had any amount of consciousness would not care about the Earth; in fact, I consider people arrogant to think that the Universe would look at them with any greater respect than, say, I would to fleas. Believing that some Cosmic Force cares about you so much that it deigns to speak to you, judge you, and tell the "right path" personally, seems to stem from the same ego that made us assume that the sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth was the center of Everything. In fact, I consider Lovecraft to be more likely to be correct than any major religion today.

Considering the long track of things we got downright wrong (not understanding genetics, our ideas that the sky was "a dome", astrology, alchemy, etc.) -- I'm not sure why I should assume we "get it right" when it comes to something more... cosmic. In fact, even the famous astrophysicists get things wrong; Einstein stuck with the idea of a cyclically Big Crunch and Big Bang, which is now being revealed to be wrong. Copernicus was obsessed with his idea that there was a "perfect geometry" that would be a key to understanding God, but couldn't get it right.

But that's just the way I see things.

That's not a scientific decision, though, and cannot be empirically defended. I realize that, and respect that. To an extent, I can see belief in a cosmic force; but when people start telling me that this cosmic force cares about me because of some arbitrary reason (like the gender of someone I have sex with, or if we have sex without a random band of metal around my finger), I demand a hell of a lot more than, "Well, because that's what I believe". Of course, you would only need to defend such a belief if you were trying to push it on me... like trying to make that sex or marriage illegal.

If people kept their religion away from me, I'd be fine with that. Similarly, I'm not calling for the abolishment of churches or prayer.

The original post here: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.c ... 0&page=15#


I don't think I expressed myself as well as I could have; I'm not really in the best mindset to write an essay right now, but well, there ya go.

[Lance]

Regarding your views; you should start a churh. I'll join.

[Lonewulf]

Hmm... what should I call such a church?

"Church of the We Don't Matter Much"?

[Enzo]

start a churh

A churh that only spake the turth.

[Lonewulf]

Jason the Mormon and I are going at it like bulls in heat. Or something. Okay, that sounded pretty gay. Either way, we've locked horns, are grunting and sweating through our exertions and...

...

Stopping this analogy now.

ANYWAYS, he's revealed an interesting viewpoint. He says that his faith is decided on the fact that he asked God and received an answer, creating a conduit through which he is sure he has gotten the answers he needs. This is good "evidence".

I pointed out the existence of other prophets, and how they, you know, come up with different conclusion than he does.

He said, and I quote:

Or they are liars. Or they were mistaken about what God actually told them. Or God didn't actually speak to them at all and they were mistaken about that.

I can't tell you what others have experienced and identified as God. I do know what I experience when I receive answers from God. Therefore I am inclined to believe my own direct experience over second-hand accounts.
That is also why I ask others to go to the same source, rather than believing my second-hand account.

So if I ask God and come to different conclusions, then I'm lying, God didn't speak to me, or I was mistaken about what God actually told me.

He encourages me to ask God myself, but if I disagree, then I'm lying or mistaken.

He also notes that according to Mormon myth, God looks just like man (No, literally). This was after I noted that religion seems quite egocentric and arrogant, believing that we are the Center of the Universe; if not physically, then spiritually.

Anyone else pick up a vibe of real arrogance from this?

[Lance]

Well, I took his advice and asked God myself. God told me Jason the Mormon is full of shit.

[Lonewulf]

God has a potty mouth. ;)

[Lance]

It's more that God uses terms that make the message clear to me. If he speaks to me in my own language then it is more likel for me to clearly understand His message.

"And thus spaketh the Lord thy GOD to Llance the Llama about Jason the Mormon. And the words he spaketh proclaimed for all in eternity that Jason the Mormon is fulleth of shit."

And since this was my own personal experience, I should know that this message came directly to me from God.

[Lonewulf]

Well, who am I to say otherwise? Preach on, brother!

[Blue Monster 65]

God told me to skin you alive.

[MM_Dandy]

How did Jason verify it was God talking to him?

[Blue Monster 65]

Obviously, god told him it was him.

[Enzo]

Retinal scan. All the gods are using it these days.



It may be cathartic to kick religion around, especially with a believer, kinda like it is fun to piddle with Thompson when I am bored, but what is the goal?

One can demand they justify their beliefs in terms of one's own standards, but that is not going to happen. One can try to turn it into some sort of rationalistc this, therefore that, and ergo the other. But they can easily say, "Beats me, this is how I see the world."

He is convinced he hears from God, and TO HIM anyone who has a different experience is either dishonest or not getting the message. OK, now what?

We all have a sense of how things ought to be. We like to verify our own.


No, I don;t know this individual, and I can;t think of anything making sense in Mormonism. Just wondering what the desired outcome might be.

[Мастер]

I think if I were active at apollohoax and it had an ignore list, I would use it on Jason. But I find some of his critics there vastly worse than he is. (RAF and that guy from the Minnesota hospital, I'm looking at you!)

[Lonewulf]

Retinal scan. All the gods are using it these days.



It may be cathartic to kick religion around, especially with a believer, kinda like it is fun to piddle with Thompson when I am bored, but what is the goal?

I had no goal. I lay down a quick run-down of my own beliefs, and then noted that I was tolerant of religion if their religion was tolerant of me and did not seek to convert me, or try to use the law against me.

Jason jumped in and tried to show where he was right and I was wrong. He's also claiming that his claims can be somewhat scientifically verified (or he did earlier on); he cites "studies" to justify his opinion that homosexuals "choose" to be homosexuals, he states that prostitution has demonstrable harm, etc. etc.

He also states that he would not expect anyone to accept Mormonism without looking at the evidence.

As long as he continues to use scientific arguments, I have a say. As soon as he pulls back and uses faith exclusively, then I have nothing to say. As long as he tries to push me into accepting his faith, then I have a say. As soon as he pulls back from that, I no longer have a say.

One can demand they justify their beliefs in terms of one's own standards, but that is not going to happen. One can try to turn it into some sort of rationalistc this, therefore that, and ergo the other. But they can easily say, "Beats me, this is how I see the world."

He stated, for instance, that there is objective evidence of the soul's existence. I am demanding him to provide said evidence.

If he says, "This is just how I see the world", I would say, "Fine. Go ahead and see the world that way. Just don't demand for me to see the world your way, or to allow you to use your views to impugn upon myself."

He is convinced he hears from God, and TO HIM anyone who has a different experience is either dishonest or not getting the message. OK, now what?

Well, I just brought it up because of my initial viewpoint (again, stemming from my very first post where I just lay down my own beliefs) that religion is quite egocentric.

It gets worse when he stated that God quite literally looks like humans, and we are "literally" built in his image. I asked an ex-Mormon friend of mine what this means when we finally meet Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and he essentially said that, if there's anything official in Mormon theology, they'd just look like us.

It's rather silly to me, and expecting me to accept that is also silly.

Again, this is not about me trying to convert or convince him. This is about me laying down my viewpoint, and his attacking it.

No, I don;t know this individual, and I can;t think of anything making sense in Mormonism. Just wondering what the desired outcome might be.

It's up to him. I just lay down a quick run-down of my own beliefs. As I've made it clear from the beginning of the debate, if he is to try to convince me of anything, he will need to provide some sort of evidence that I would accept, under Carl Sagan's ideal of "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence".

If he was willing to adopt the "Live and Let Live" policy of Gillianren, I would have no reason to question or insult his faith.



Still, I suppose you might have a point. Since I don't have a set goal, I am easily drawn off-track and drawn into side debates.

[Lonewulf]

I think if I were active at apollohoax and it had an ignore list, I would use it on Jason. But I find some of his critics there vastly worse than he is. (RAF and that guy from the Minnesota hospital, I'm looking at you!)

I can be like RAF at times, I admit.

[Blue Monster 65]

There's never been any proof; there never will be any proof: there's just the desparate desire of those who wish to submit to fairy tales as life is too difficult for those people without said beliefs.

Give this guy time and I'm sure he'll bring up Ray Comfort's banana video as a shining example of "proof." Sigh ...

[Lonewulf]

I doubt it. He sticks with Mormon sources almost exclusively. If the LDS authorities don't say or admit it, it didn't happen. Unless they DID say it and it suggests the Church is bad. And unless scientists show that gays are only gay by choice, then it's okay (but those are quoted by LDS authorities, so...)

(So the bit about Mormonism discriminating against blacks until the '70s? Never happened)

I think that he'll stick, when talking about proof of God, to his "God told me" bit. It's fundamentally unprovable and untouchable. Which is fair enough... that's why I'm basically trying to shift the discussion currently on things he's claiming that he has evidence for.

[Enzo]

Feign interest, ask to be shown.

[Lonewulf]

I think it's too late for me to feign interest at this point. I'm a bit too blunt for subtle tricks. :)

He asked me what evidence I would accept when I asked what evidence he had. This seems to be a rather dishonest trick.

If I state that I require empirical evidence and studies, he'll argue that I don't require empirical evidence for EVERYTHING, like love and emotions and stuff. Ergo, the suggestion is that I require an unreasonable amount of evidence for existence of the soul.

Besides that, I don't have any idea what evidence he has, so I can't really pick and choose what's convincing beforehand, now can I?

[Blue Monster 65]

How 'bout evidence that can be tested via either scientific means to be determined by said evidence or through third parties?

You also should ask him if the Book of Mormon as a plagiarized sci-fi novel. That oughta elicit some response from him. Hahahahahahaha!

[Lonewulf]

I'm actually kind of scared to go back to the apollohoax forum now. If I do, I'll see that he made a new post, and I'll just HAVE to click on it.

I'm at the point where I cannot deal with distractions while dealing with some difficult things, like an essay that was due weeks ago, and school starting now.

Aaaargh.

[Blue Monster 65]

Time to turn the net off again! It is addicting, isn't it? But it also can be a huge waste of one's time.

[Мастер]

I think if I were active at apollohoax and it had an ignore list, I would use it on Jason. But I find some of his critics there vastly worse than he is. (RAF and that guy from the Minnesota hospital, I'm looking at you!)

I can be like RAF at times, I admit.

Well, if you are trying to address the substance of his arguments, that puts your post way ahead of a lot of the criticisms he gets there, which often takes the form:

Jason: <calmly states his position, which may or may not be supported by a well-reasoned argument, and which others may or may not agree with>
Critic: Oh yeah? Well I'm sick of you narrow-minded intolerant religious bigots who are reactionary hypocrites and <insult> <insult> <insult> <insult>

The long list of insults certainly being something that applies to some religious people, but also to some non-religious people, perhaps at least as often. There is another person over there, who is usually quite polite, but seems to take the view that any argument borne of religious faith is flawed, therefore any argument not borne of religious faith is sound. If my time on science boards has taught me anything, it's that people who chant "Science! Science! Science!" the whole day long are just as capable of cooking up illogical, flawed arguments as anyone else.

In general, I think religious people tend to get a bad rap. Most of the ones I come across at least, seem pretty reasonable, and are hardly the fire-breathing foaming-at-the-mouth stereotype that some like RAF seem to assume they are. People often also cite "bad" things (let's leave aside the subjectivity necessarily involved in deciding what is "good" and "bad") like wars, persecution, etc., as evidence of the "badness" of religion. It is claimed at least (I haven't got evidence - anyone else, one way or the other?) that approximately one fourth of the world's AIDS sufferers are in the direct care of the Catholic Church. Maybe you don't subscribe to their beliefs (I don't), but I don't particularly like the idea that if you hold some set of religious beliefs, you are automatically a bad person. What do some of the critics do that's so f***ing great?

So I guess I would try to keep it at the level of debating facts and the soundness of his arguments, rather than the this-person-is-the-good-guy and this-person-is-the-bad-guy that often seems to go on there. And yes, I know it's hard, which is one of the reasons I'm not there anymore. So I guess I have already adopted your tactic of just staying away, knowing that if I go there, I will see something that will get my blood pressure up :(

For a board called "ApolloHoax", there aren't very many posts about Apollo :)

[Lonewulf]

Well, if you are trying to address the substance of his arguments, that puts your post way ahead of a lot of the criticisms he gets there, which often takes the form:

Jason: <calmly states his position, which may or may not be supported by a well-reasoned argument, and which others may or may not agree with>
Critic: Oh yeah? Well I'm sick of you narrow-minded intolerant religious bigots who are reactionary hypocrites and <insult> <insult> <insult> <insult>

Sure, I could make rants at religious people in general, but what does that accomplish? I mean, I respect Jay Utah and Gillian, after all.

However, I have no patience for people that seek to impose their religion on me, whether through the law or trying to convert me. If you defend your religion as being a matter of "faith", that cannot be proven, then how can you insist that other people should follow that "faith"?

And Jason has made his position very clear on cases like homosexuality.

In general, I think religious people tend to get a bad rap. Most of the ones I come across at least, seem pretty reasonable, and are hardly the fire-breathing foaming-at-the-mouth stereotype that some like RAF seem to assume they are. People often also cite "bad" things (let's leave aside the subjectivity necessarily involved in deciding what is "good" and "bad") like wars, persecution, etc., as evidence of the "badness" of religion.

Part of that is a direct reaction to the claim that, if you're an atheist, you are not capable of morality.

So I guess I would try to keep it at the level of debating facts and the soundness of his arguments, rather than the this-person-is-the-good-guy and this-person-is-the-bad-guy that often seems to go on there. And yes, I know it's hard, which is one of the reasons I'm not there anymore. So I guess I have already adopted your tactic of just staying away, knowing that if I go there, I will see something that will get my blood pressure up [Sad]

I'm only staying away until I have time to argue. :P

For a board called "ApolloHoax", there aren't very many posts about Apollo

You really don't want me to go into how many posts aren't about the Illuminati here, do you?