There is NO difference between the Mormon church and ANY OTHER church... they are all CONTROLLING CULTS spreading MYTHS.

We like to single out the Mormon church... but in reality... THEY ARE ALL THE SAME.

PROVE ME WRONG, I DARE YOU.

athiest ?

Good catch!... Atheist... blame the phone!

Athiest = the most athi you can be.

Don't be a dick, Dave.

(I'm sorry! It's like I'm channeling Haiku or something.)

Don't be a dick, Dave.
Your name speaks your position
On the afterlife



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2020 01:30AM by Beth.

Okay, I'm an atheist, so I'm not a defender of religion. But before you go throwing "cult" around, consult one of the several lists of traits of a cult. There are a number of churches that have many of the traits, but a lot more that don't. Some churches are coercive, some are just places to indulge in some music and ceremony and hear a sermon. Some are heavily into guilt and shame, some are happy, friendly, feel-good-because-God-loves-you places. Sure, they're all founded on myth, but a lot of things in life are.

People who type in all caps are sexually maladjusted, and can only get aroused when eShouting.

Prove me wrong.



My point: you cannot possibly know enough about all churches to justify your charge, any more than I know who is sexually maladjusted. It's not a defensible conclusion. It's a sloppy rant.

"you cannot possibly know enough about all churches" is like saying we can't disprove moon quakers because we haven't searched the entire moon.

No, actually, it's not at all like that.

+Brother Of Jerry:
"My point: you cannot possibly know enough about all churches to justify your charge, any more than I know who is sexually maladjusted. It's not a defensible conclusion. It's a sloppy rant."

==It would be a massive undertaking to verify every church, what every single priest claims, today, tomorrow and throughout all of time. Also, there have been thousands of extinct religions which we know nothing about.
There might even be aliens with alien religions.

This is similar to the case of
"I have observed this many swans and they are all white, therefore, I conclude that all existing swans, past, present and future are white."

^^^^The above is an extrapolation based on current observations.
Extrapolation is something that is done in the sciences.
It is done when talking about statistics.

It's not necessarily wrong. It is just a conclusion based on a certain sampling.

~~~~iceman9090

If a mormon , finds out that I grew up a mormon, and just believe in christianity, not mormonism, they have a hard time with that. I maybe go to a christian church twice a year. It just blows their mind. Has anybody else encountered that?

"Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues." Sam Harris, the Problem of Atheism
You exemplify one of Sam's main critique of atheism.

Sam Harris is a waste of precious time and energy.

Just wondering: Are you an Old Atheist or a New One?

Sam Harris is stupid and says stupid things and licks public bathroom faucet handles.

May I see your Atheist Union membership card? Otherwise you'll have to leave.

Stop waffling. What do you really think?

They aren't all the same. Unitarians are very different from Scientologists. Insular thinking now belongs to Ideology.

+schrodingerscat:
There is no concept of atheism.
Atheism is a nothing.

Let's say we have a court case. I am part of the jury. You come in and it is up to your to demonstrate that Mr X did some crime.
If you fail, then I will declare Mr X as not guilty and he can go home. You have failed to do your job.
It is important that you accept that you have failed.
Don't blame me for your failings. Don't blame me for your incompetence. Don't ask me to join in and prove that he is innocent.
The default position is not guilty.

In the same way, the gods are not guilty of existing. That is the default position.

~~~~iceman9090

A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +schrodingerscat:
> There is no concept of atheism.
> Atheism is a nothing.

It's not just me, I quoted Sam Harris, the unwilling "Leader of New Atheist Movement", which he killed with his speech, "The Problem of Atheism"

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet."

I agree with Sam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2020 03:03PM by schrodingerscat.

So you also agree with Harris's islamophobia.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you also agree with Harris's islamophobia.

I think his book, "The End of Faith" was the most important and realistic response to 9-11, yes.
Can you name a better response to 9'11?
Maybe Dawkin's God Delusion, but i don't think Dawkins was any less amti-Muslim, or what you'd call Islamaphobic.
Hitchins sure as hell wasn't less Anti-Muslim. He was all for the Gulf war based upon his hatred of Muslims.

I don't know why we even care about these guys.

Exactly.

Why do you think we care about NYT bestselling authors, who wrote the most intelligent responses to 9-11?
I can't think of a more important or popular response to 9-11, can you?

You've changed topics. You started out discussing religions as cults, now you are on to 9/11.

I prefer to stay on topic. You are of course free to chase any rabbit you want.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've changed topics. You started out discussing
> religions as cults, now you are on to 9/11.
>
> I prefer to stay on topic. You are of course free
> to chase any rabbit you want.

Beth asked why we care about Harris or Dawkins. I care about them because they are interesting philosophers, scientists and NYT bestselling authors who write about religion and alternatives to religion.
And I cant name 2 people who wrote a better response to 9-11 and neither can you, apparently.

Why would I answer a question like that? The premise is foolish. Those men are pop stars, neither philosophers nor experts on 9/11.

That you cannot see that is unfortunate and not a little bit sad.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would I answer a question like that? The
> premise is foolish. Those men are pop stars,
> neither philosophers nor experts on 9/11.
>
> That you cannot see that is unfortunate and not a
> little bit sad.

Pop stars?
Lol.
They're both scientists and NYT bestselling authors.
That's extremely rare.
And you and Beth agree none of us should pay attention to best selling authors?
Interesting.

>>And you and Beth agree none of us should pay attention to best selling authors?

"Stars of A&E’s 'Duck Dynasty' Willie and Korie Robertson are New York Times best-selling authors of 'The Duck Commander Family: How Faith, Family, and Ducks Built a Dynasty'."

That's one book I'm going to ignore, but it might hold some interest for Beth. :o)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2020 01:55AM by summer.

<3

Oh, that was good! Nicely done!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2020 02:57AM by Lot's Wife.

> They're both scientists and NYT bestselling
> authors.

Yes. As I said, neither of them are philosophers nor are they people with any expertise in the Middle East or geopolitics who could shed light on 9/11.


-------------------
> And you and Beth agree none of us should pay
> attention to best selling authors?

Let me clarify any unintentional ambiguity. The vast majority of books on the NYT bestseller list are worthless and will soon be deservedly pulped.

For example, a quick perusal of the list as it stands at this instant includes books by Michael Cohen, Jenna Bush Hager, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. Are those books high quality? Are the authors "philosophers?"


------------------
> Interesting.

No, they are not. That's the point.

They have a nifty little dagger that's supposed to indicate when someone has bought thousands of their own books. SMH

There are so many ways to game that system.

Yes. The odd pol has been known to write a book and then purchase, or have his friends purchase, enough volumes to get it on list. What happens to all those books once they arrive at the doorstep/s?

Quentin Tarantino answered that question in his famous film: Pulp Non-Fiction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2020 03:09AM by Lot's Wife.

Ignorance is bliss.

E=Mc^2

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> E=Mc^2
Like I thought, you still can't name a better response to 9-11 than "End of Faith"

I can't get to the End of Faith because I'm too busy reading the new philosophic treatise by Jenna Bush Hager.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > They're both scientists and NYT bestselling
> > authors.
>
> Yes. As I said, neither of them are philosophers

What makes you think Sam Harris is not a philosopher when he has an academic background in philosophy and neuroscience?

You better edit his wikipedia bio.

Samuel Benjamin Harris (born April 9, 1967[citation needed]) is an American author, neuroscientist, and podcast host. His work touches on a wide range of topics, including rationality, religion, ethics, free will, neuroscience, meditation, psychedelics, philosophy of mind, politics, terrorism, and artificial intelligence. Harris came to prominence for his criticism of religion, and Islam in particular, and is described as one of the "Four Horsemen of Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.[3][4] His academic background is in both philosophy and cognitive neuroscience.[5]

Meh to the NYT Best Sellers list. It's a self-fulfilling feedback loop. <-- that's probably redundant like the NYT best sellers list! I don't put much stock in it.

I've heard that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time. Nothing about book sales compels me to read it or anything else.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2020 02:33AM by Beth.

Ignorance is bliss.

Oh, darling. My fervent wish is that one day you'll quit the fanboy hero worship and start to think for yourself.

Being well read isn't hero worshipped, its called not ignorant.

I agree with every word of that

I started reading rfm in the mid to late 90s. At the time I also read some usenet newsgroups. One being alt.atheism.moderated. alt.atheism was unmoderated and had a pretty low signal to noise ratio.

I don't recall how newsgroups were started. Seems like a sysop of some sort had the power, but it wasn't highly regulated. When you'd scan the list of groups you could tell that there were quite a few that had been made in error or as a joke.

In the list it showed the name of the newsgroup and there was a brief description of the group. For alt.atheism the description was "godless heathens". Right below alt.atheism was alt.athiesm. Its description was "illiterate godless heathens". :)

+Brother Bacon Sandwich:
LOL.

Back then, I use to access such newsgroups through a kind of terminal at the university. They had these green and black monitors and just a keyboard. The actual processing was done by a central server.

There is a website called godless bitches. They advertise it on the Atheist Experience show. Anyone know Matt Dillahunty? I wish he would debate a mormon.

~~~~iceman9090

Matt has had mormons call into his show a couple of times. I met him at an Atheist convention in Salt Lake.

+Dave the Atheist:
I saw only one caller and it was someone who already seemed unsure of mormonism. The arguments put forth by the mormon were thus too weak.

I need more.

~~~~iceman9090

People paint with a broad brush because it gets the job done faster---but not better. Nice to have some fine pointed sables to go with your palette.

Hasty tattered writing style aside . . .



After leaving Mormonism I looked at a lot of churches very carefully. What I saw was most were what I called "Mormon-Lite." Not so obviously culty and controlling, but still sharing almost all of the same ingredients that bake into a religion.

So I get your point. I feel that way sometimes.

So far I see no one who has conclusively proven you wrong.

I don't think you are, but a little nuance could go a long way. The amount of control a church a church uses to orchestrate the behavior of their followers---from suggesting kindness for your neighbor all the way yup to "complete obedience or else" like Mormonism--should be considered in the cult definition.

Like your premise which cannot be proven false, so too do all churches operate on myths that cannot possibly be proven true and only bits and pieces proven false.

The Mormon church rates as a cult because you are expected to take their word over everyone else's no matter what facts or reason exist. Some other churches aren't quite that, but, I do agree there is much in common with Mormonism even if watered down.

A strong poison will kill you quickly, but a weak poison will still do the job.

+Done & Done:
"After leaving Mormonism I looked at a lot of churches very carefully. What I saw was most were what I called "Mormon-Lite." Not so obviously culty and controlling, but still sharing almost all of the same ingredients that bake into a religion."

==When you say churches, are you talking about christian churches?

That's like having Coca-Cola and thousands of other companies all making Coca-Cola like drinks.

Don't ask me which one of them is the original Coca-Cola. Each one claims to be the one true church.
You need to try some 7-Up or Redbull or Fresca.

Life is like a garden. Dig it!

~~~~iceman9090

 

+elderolddog:
"I just can't believe atheists."

==I am an atheist and I say that you exist.
Wink-wink.

~~~~iceman9090

You've proved yourself wrong.

Why should anyone else have to do it?

Smiles

If I am understanding correctly, SC has reviewed many 'responses' to 9/11 and has found, in his opinion, that the 'best' response to 9/11 was Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith".

I have a 19-year-old memory of me saying, "Holy Shit!!", when the second plane hit. I sincerely believe that my 'response' is as good, and more easily appreciated, than Mr. Harris's.

Of course, my opinion doesn't count; no opinion counts that isn't supportive ... Eschew that which isn't useful and life is a breeze.

I think the Unitarian Universalists would be really amazed to learn that they are part of a "controlling cult."

Smiles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is NO difference between the Mormon church
> and ANY OTHER church...

> PROVE ME WRONG, I DARE YOU.

I just love a good dare. Too bad it isn't a double God dare.


But I can prove you wrong. The Mormon Church is different than many other churches. They have 100 billion dollars and are probably the most successful church at converging religious myths with corporate profit endeavors. If multi-level marketing were a religion it would probably be Mormonism.


And there are religious beliefs that don't include gods.

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

Poor atheist. You aren't generating warm feelings in other people if you are in the United States.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/