One thing that has helped me in my ever changing worldview has been not to shoot the messenger. Look at LDS Corp. They always shoot their messengers yet they have scripture to the contrary.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/102?lang=eng

The experience of this man was informative in how LDS Corp shoots first and never asks questions later.

https://medium.com/the-seer-stone/for-their-book-this-couple-was-excommunicated-from-the-lds-church-3fc124ca41aa

And so in my journey here on RfM I tried to shoot the messengers of atheism. In regards to me beliefs, they were merely challenging them and I was taking them as fighting words. Beliefs are funny things that way. They are almost by definition sacred cows. And hard to change. But I changed and not the challenges to my beliefs.

But even if I hadn't changed I hope that I would have tried to NOT be in the habit of shooting messengers. It is never a good idea. And I believe the same holds true for atheists. If there were information that was true and useful to a non-believer such as myself I hope I would entertain it. I can hold a belief that it is highly improbable such as a belief in a being or agent or intelligence exists with regards to material existence AND my personal existence.

If something came about to prove this assertion false I hope that I would not shoot the messenger. And I think at least one LDS leader would have not been so willing as LDS leaders today to shoot their messengers given what he expected from the church in his lifetime.

"More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts."
Hugh B. Brown

But these leaders today are more like this guy.

"It was necessary that the Devil should have a representation upon the Earth, as well as God."
Warren Jeffs

The problem is Mormonism today is all about shooting practice be it a small sect or a giant multinational corporation. We as individuals don't have to mirror their bad behavior. We can be more enlightened in entertaining opposing points of view. I know I can try harder to do so.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2019 11:31AM by Elder Berry.

Some people ARE the message. Some people make it impossible to separate themselves from the message. Some people beg for target practice on their arrogant, in your face, assuredness they have pinned to their chest.

The real problem with shooting the messengers is that they refuse to die. They just shoot back. Like the walking dead. They start calling you an "ineffable something or other." Of course then you know you have at least grazed them. They rarely realize they have been done in by class.

You are always an "affable something or other," though, Elder Berry----as far as I have seen.


War. It's here to stay. What you going to do?

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> War. It's here to stay. What you going to do?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

What are some Atheist defenseless beliefs ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are some Atheist defenseless beliefs ?

That trains are interesting to most people...

Non-sequitur

HH =)

Do you not have any?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are some Atheist defenseless beliefs ?


Do you have any? I'm talking about people and not some kind of "Atheist defenseless beliefs." Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Is it based upon facts? Is that how one defends beliefs even ones as their continuing to see the sun rising?

I thought atheism meant without belief in a god thing, not without beliefs.

You are correct.


The fact that Atheism is a disbelief of theism does not preclude other beliefs.

Since a belief can only qualify as a belief because it can't be proven--other wise it would be a fact--- aren't all beliefs defenseless?

Oh. As an atheist. I believe in always reassessing beliefs. That is about my only belief. Besides believing in the being good for goodness sake, that is about my only belief. I don't find those two defenseless.


I have hunches based on present data. I draw conclusions based on facts I have at the time I draw the conclusions. I have ideal situations I hope are true, but do not necessarily believe them to be true. I'm more a "wait and see" type.


But beliefs in the true sense of the word? Doesn't come up.




I have hunches based on present data. I draw conclusions based on facts I have at the time I draw the conclusions. I have ideal situations I hope are true, but do not necessarily believe them to be true. I'm more a "wait and see" type.


But beliefs in the true sense of the word? Doesn't come up much for me.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have hunches based on present data.

Just like Gordo? ;)

Haha. Yes. Good ole Gordo. Except I will freely admit mine are hunches only and may even be tinged with wanting them to be true.

I consider you prophetic when they come true. ;) A dream is a wish your hear makes is good for Disney and not people caught in organized belief systems.

> Since a belief can only qualify as a belief
> because it can't be proven--other wise it would be
> a fact--- aren't all beliefs defenseless?

Nicely put.


-------------------
> I have hunches based on present data. I draw
> conclusions based on facts I have at the time I
> draw the conclusions. I have ideal situations I
> hope are true, but do not necessarily believe them
> to be true. I'm more a "wait and see" type.

That is so good it deserves to be said twice.


---------------------
> I have hunches based on present data. I draw
> conclusions based on facts I have at the time I
> draw the conclusions. I have ideal situations I
> hope are true, but do not necessarily believe them
> to be true. I'm more a "wait and see" type.

;-)

Haha. I get a little trigger happy with the Post Message button sometimes, well, a lot. Not that I'm scattered or anything . . .

But thanks.

The basis is one's epistemology is an assumption. It can not be proven. Most start with I think there i am or something similar.

But this can't be proven. We could be simulations, we could be demon tormented souls. We could brains in a vat, commonly abreviated BIV. But the only direction that has utility is to assume we exist.

Usually, the next level is also an unproven assumption often Some declaration of sensory validity. I prefer a qualified statement along the lines that at least sometimes my sensory input is valid. But I have been decieved by my senses as well so they are not wholly reliable.

If you fall into the empirical camp, that is a sufficient set of assumptions. Reality can then be determined from evidence of repeatable results.

Rationalists add at minimum that the mind is a source of truth and often still more. Feelings being a source of truth as well.

The debate is largely if that added assumption of the mind supplying truth is a warranted assumption.

There are certainly many variations in the empirical and rational views beyond that stated above but that is the basic deviation.

I agree with that. My prophet, Nietzsche, put the point concisely: how do you know that what feels rational, what appears to make sense, is a guide to truth? Only through an act of faith in one's powers of perception and deduction.

I've been pummeled on this board several times for reprising Nietzsche's observation, but the fact is that we are here and we participate in many activities that are founded on those basic assumptions. If we do that, as a practical matter, D&D's attitude strikes me as right.

Truth is empirically probabilistic: we reach conclusions on the basis of the facts we perceive and, if honest, refine or even reverse those conclusions as more facts become known.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with that. My prophet, Nietzsche, put the
> point concisely: how do you know that what feels
> rational, what appears to make sense, is a guide
> to truth? Only through an act of faith in one's
> powers of perception and deduction.

He was a breed apart and probably more Neanderthal than most. ;)

I have to thank you LW. When I was young I was in Godspell at the University of Utah (where I worked after BYU) and I had to sing the Nietzsche line in the opening. I was not even curious as to who Nietzsche was then or what he was about. And now, as he is your "prophet" I had to look him up and see what he was all about. Bingo. My prophet too. The stars have aligned.

You always make me want to go back to University and this time just to learn, not to get a degree---or because back then I didn't know what else to do. I am more curious and more hungry to know, to learn, now more than ever in my "tempered" age.

D&D Late Bloomer

You know how I feel about you, D&D, and about EB who, despite his Neanderthal comment, is also a fan of Brother Friedrich.

Nietzsche was a prophet in the sense that he understood people and politics so well that he made observations that were in many instances stunningly prescient. He was also awkward socially, almost permanently isolated, in part from having grown up in a narrow and tyrannical religion and under the care of cruel and cold adults.

If his parents had been like you and EB, he might not have developed such an insightful mind but he would probably have enjoyed a much happier life.

Dad hugs. So much comes down to dad hugs.

"So much comes down to Dad hugs."

So too many Dad hugs dilutes a Nietzsche? Proof positive that life is just not fair.

I still vote for everybody to get at least *some* Dad Hugs.

If I ever claim there was an actual prophet, Nietzsche would be the only one I would claim.

Dad hugs are great unless you are twelve having never had a hug from a man and get one from the man who eventually molests you.

I've noticed a tendency here to claim that "belief" can only be faith-based. That's not how the word actually works.

Also, science does not "prove" things. The scientific method provides evidence, which can vary in quality and degree of persuasiveness. When you hear people saying something has been "proven," that's generally an indicator that they have not had much education in science and don't understand how the process works.

Anyway, in real life -- not RfM -- it's very common to hear people say, "Based on the evidence we have now, we believe X." Belief is not faith. It's a non-standard usage of the word to restrict it in that way. A belief is an opinion, nothing more; it may be supported by an enormous body of evidence or none at all. (Note: conclusions reached by scientists are also opinions -- beliefs -- based on available evidence. Some of those opinions stand up over time, and others, while seemingly rock-solid, are later debunked by further research.)

The first moon landing was accomplished based entirely on beliefs and was sustained by faith.

As was the first time I got laid.


Doubt is a survival mechanism for the preservation of the species.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doubt is a survival mechanism for the preservation
> of the species.
===============================

Mind-Bendingly Cool!

There is what is actually real;

Then there are intellectual constructs (sometimes called beliefs) which are not real, just as the equator is not real; it exists only in the mind. So these constructs may or may not correlate with the actual real;

Then there is the problem of confusing the who-I-am with my beliefs, which is why the battles are so desperate when beliefs are challenged.

Messengers live and die in the space between lower two realms.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Messengers live and die in the space between lower
> two realms.

No need to destroy the herma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herma

Hermeneutics flourish in the lower realms.

Elder Berry Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> No need to destroy the herma.
===============================

Heh!

I learned a new word. :-D

What do you mean the equator isn't real?????? How dare you.

I like what you wrote. Made me realize that once an abstract or an intellectual construct or, a wish even, is given a name, in our minds it becomes real. Could Names and Labels be more powerful than fact. Than evidence? Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to jump the cerebral cortex in a single bound?

The more you talk about something the more real it becomes.

I think Mormons use this concept. The more you talk about the emotional construct of God, the more real he is. At a certain point then the construct crosses a line and is accepted as a "fact" even though of course it isn't a fact but only an acceptance--- but it might as well be a fact because the fact is the construct of God no longer requires facts to be facts.

I know what I meant by the above believe it or not. In fact in this sense, the CK is every bit as real as the equator.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At a certain point then the
> construct crosses a line and is accepted as a
> "fact" even though of course it isn't a fact but
> only an acceptance--- but it might as well be a
> fact because the fact is the construct of God no
> longer requires facts to be facts.


The construct of God is sustained as fact. All you have to do to make something real is sustain it in a meeting of organized adherents to the spiritual substrate of existence.

Apparently the Greeks were okay reducing a man to hid face and his genitalia. Were there no pot bellies in ancient Greece?

They were horny squares trying to understand their gods unless you were old like Socrates. Their Buddha.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2019 12:58PM by Elder Berry.

I will de-fence my beliefs if you will promise to feed them should they wander into your domains.

As long as you are okay with them wandering into Jesus' pastures. He told me to feed them.