https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/now-is-the-time-to-reestablish-reality/

Now Is the Time to Reestablish Reality

"We need to agree on the evidence — so we can disagree on what to do in light of it."

I am certain that science is the only universal cosmology for humans. Math and the scientific method are rigorous and factual. No religious reality can come close, and, worse, these realities conflict with science and with one another.

The fool who asks, "whom should we worship?" has already gone wrong.

I find much of this essay as troubling as the problems the author seeks to sweepingly and casually address.

On a fundamental level, I for one do not want to leave it to science to "establish reality," at least not as a general principle. Science can educate me about climate change, viruses, pandemics, etc., and I am all ears--with much respect and gratitude. But I don't want to leave it to neurologists, evolutionary biologists or psychologists to tell me (or society at large) about the robotic, mechanistic nature of human beings; the relativity of human values; or the illusion of free will. This essay wants to include psychologists and social scientists as also the harbingers of "reality." That scares the hell out of me. You might as well also call in the historians, the politicians, and the massage therapists. Let all such people have their say, of course, but let's not place scientists of any stripe on a pedestal that gives them worshipful status and shields them from criticism of the reality they so generously re-established.

And let's be clear, reality extends far beyond science. The most obvious way it does so is with the deployment of mathematics and logic--which are themselves metaphysical appendages to scientific practice; So, let science explain to us the reality of consciousness, mind, free will, mathematics, and rationality itself, and then maybe we can consider its elevated role in society.

Finally, the OP essay states: "Putting the onus of monitoring misinformation on government regulation would lighten the load for journalists and researchers who have been stretched thin by the task." Now, could there possibly be anything more unwise than that? Let's not forget that we have just experienced a despot who would have been more than happy to "monitor misinformation" as a function of government in order to ease the stress of our poor over-worked journalists. No thanks.

In short, one thing I am witnessing from mostly the Left after January 6th is an over-reaction (If that is possible). Do we really want to jump aboard the slippery slope of sacrificing personal freedoms, like free speech and freedom of the press, so that we can all be safe from over-zealous and out-of-tune Trumpeters? I say we just learn a lesson; beef up our security, strengthen our institutions--and, promote critical thinking on social media without dictating thought.

This isn't a left vs. right or religious vs. non religious issue.

This is about reality.

For example, if you want to be a Mormon *and* accept reality, you must acknowledge the historical record and just conclude that god or the universe or whatever picked a con man and grifter to make up a new religion for some unknown reason.

If you don't, then you are denying reality.

Denial of something doesn't make it so.

Denying climate change or that coronavirus isn't real has nothing to do with with "freedom."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2021 06:54PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This isn't a left vs. right or religious vs. non
> religious issue.
> This is about reality.

It is not about reality; it is about who gets to define, establish, or re-establish reality, and thereby define what people should or should not believe.
________________________________

> For example, if you want to be a Mormon *and*
> accept reality, you must acknowledge the
> historical record and just conclude that god or
> the universe or whatever picked a con man and
> grifter to make up a new religion for some unknown
> reason.
>
> If you don't, then you are denying reality.

To suggest that anyone who denies that JS was a conman and grifter thereby denies "reality" is nothing more than anti-Mormon rhetoric. "Reality" as it relates to human psychology and history is far to subjective and messy to take such statements literally. Alternatively, to suggest that anyone who denies that JS was a conman and grifter thereby goes against the overwhelming weight of the evidence is an empirical statement and perfectly legitimate.
________________________________________

> Denial of something doesn't make it so.

Neither does affirming something.
________________________________________

> Denying climate change or that coronavirus isn't
> real has nothing to do with with "freedom."

It does if such denials motivate people to silence and suppress such opinions.

the problem with "establishing reality" with government mandate is who gets to determine the reality?

someone you like this time...next time who knows.

Science does not have ALL the answers. Science does not have ALL the facts, ALL the evidence. Science does not define reality. They are the search for reality. They are a wonderful work in progress not afraid to self correct.

The reality is there is cool clear water in the stream. You can lead a horse to it, but you can't make him drink if the horse's perception is that the water is undrinkable, or, just isn't thirsty--as in a person who doesn't care what the truth is.

BKP wasn't wrong when he said, "Some truths are not useful."
That is true of those with an all consuming personal agenda and find might to be of more value.

I have to agree. When Henry (or anyone) says that reality extends beyond science, that is either true in the sense that science is an incomplete body of knowledge or false because science is a discipline for understanding reality and hence cannot per se be right or wrong.

As soon as one asserts that something is both beyond science and true, all sorts of problems arise because there is no reliable standard on which to conclude anything about truth. This is God of the Gaps stuff: while faith-based belief constantly cedes ground as science advances, science replaces that belief with demonstrable facts. It is science that pushes God ever further into the shadows.

The most one can say about that which is not scientifically proved is that it could be true--and that is exactly what an agnostic would say about God.

“As soon as one asserts that something is both beyond science and true, all sorts of problems arise because there is no reliable standard on which to conclude anything about truth. This is God of the Gaps stuff: while faith-based belief constantly cedes ground as science advances, science replaces that belief with demonstrable facts. It is science that pushes God ever further into the shadows.”

That’s a good summary of the scientific worldview. I would say the science replaces beliefs with more congruent beliefs. The notion that beliefs create reality, to paraphrase Henry Ford, is relegated to the world of imagination.

Religion invites us to a Wonkaesque “world of pure imagination” that some would consider pure insanity. The realm of faith is the realm of divine imagination. Since there is only feeling to back it up, it is by definition unscientific. That is a problem for the black and white part of the scientific world. Faith can be and has been scientifically tested. Doing so skewers too many sacred cows for any semblance of acceptance. It’s probably most accurate to say that imagination creates a certain subset of reality: the God part, not the Caesar part.

The yin-yang symbol represents this balance. The world is coming out of a severe imbalance in yin and yang. There’s a new spirituality in the wind. Scientists are less hard core about physical materialism than in the heyday of 20th Century Mormonism, which as a religion follows the trend line of technologies.

This line appears as if by magic by the amalgamation of S curves. When one technology matures and reaches to limit of its growth, another arises to replace it. The uptake of a particular technology traces out an ‘S’. This trend can be seen in silicon in Moore’s Law and its corollaries such as price per computation. That curve can be traced back through mechanical computers, books, quill pens, and improvements in mathematical theory. On a log graph, it’s suspiciously flat for a curiously large number of centuries. Perhaps spiritual technologies follow a similar principle. The old ones are dying because they are wrong in the coming world. They weren’t necessarily wrong in the past.

Truth cuts both ways. Beliefs in false religious and false scientific doctrines will fall by the wayside. Then will come the time of truth. This could be the meaning of the second coming of Christ. It’s not a physical being, as a certain horny con man would have you believe. It’s a spirit. The heart within all hearts. Even now the lies are falling away. Suddenly, loving a lie isn’t so fashionable.

Three points.

First, science and what you call the world of imagination are not equally valid. In fact, the latter is not subject to falsification unless science intrudes with its greater rigor. When science and belief conflict, it is not the latter that emerges victorious.

Second, it would be a mistake to think that scientists are uncomfortable with uncertainty. The most logical thinkers recognize the limits of existing science and the probable limits of future science. That implies a greater humility than most believers evince, for believers are by definition unwilling to test a substantial subset of their convictions.

Third, I'm not sure what you are doing with the yin-yang metaphor since it doesn't apply the way you suggest. In fact, you slide from that imagery to the notion of false beliefs falling by the wayside and truth ultimately prevailing in a way that is itself faith-based: the positivism of the late 19th and 20th centuries. There really isn't a way to prove that that outlook is factually sustainable.

For while human science and technology definitely improve over time, human behavior does not. How long will this species of primates survive when armed with ever more powerful weaponry and ever more destructive environmental demands? It's tempting to believe that people will overcome that problem but there is nothing more than faith to support that conviction.

Imaginary beliefs are not false if you believe them. They just aren’t universally true. I can see that coming off as loony toons. But this is what moved us from mud huts to civilization.

Science is the application of restricted belief. Specifically, a belief in mathematics which is a Platonic ideal. The concepts are only as good as the models, so garbage in, garbage out. The practice of science is an act of faith. Faith combined with works produces modern miracles. When science strikes the rock for water and says “look at what I did”, instead of having an eye single to the glory of God, that’s when the problems start.

There is only love. All else is illusion. Science as a study of the material world is a grand illusion, so its truth is ephemeral. So pick your poison, I guess. Do we really know more about the cosmos than a garden slug?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 02:21AM by bradley.

Example:

I don't have to jump up and down and make animal sacrifices to know the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Why?

Because I know the Earth spins on its axis and because of angular momentum, it will keep on spinning.

That is not a "belief." That is something that you can test for yourself.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imaginary beliefs are not false if you believe
> them.

That is incorrect. Facts don't bend when confronted with belief, as anyone knows who has seen a bird crash into a window it believed with utter confidence was not there.


----------------
> Science is the application of restricted belief.
> Specifically, a belief in mathematics which is a
> Platonic ideal.

Platonic ideals are not related to science or math. Plato was a mystic. Science stems more from Aristotle, who rejected the notion of ideals altogether.


-----------------------
> The concepts are only as good as
> the models, so garbage in, garbage out.

No, the test for a system of epistemology is whether anything comes out at all. Platonic ideals are by definition beyond science since they do not exist in material form and hence cannot be tested or even explored. So Aristotle and empirical science are garbage in, garbage out; but Platonic thinking is garbage in, nothing out.


----------------
> When
> science strikes the rock for water and says
> “look at what I did”, instead of having an eye
> single to the glory of God, that’s when the
> problems start.

So you think science is unproductive without religion? I think that is 180 degrees off the mark.


--------------------
> There is only love. All else is illusion. Science
> as a study of the material world is a grand
> illusion, so its truth is ephemeral.

Those are just platitudes. I can look at history and reach the conclusion that there is only selfishness or self-preservation. "Love" or generosity are survival mechanisms that developed through natural selection.

Any bets on which of our models has better predictive validity for human behavior?


--------------------
> Do we really know more about the
> cosmos than a garden slug?

Absolutely.

Example:

Suppose someone says, "I believe the Pyramids were built by gods from outer space in 10,000 BCE."

That's an assertion.

The next question is, "OK. Can you prove it? Where's your evidence?"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 02:45AM by anybody.

From what I've seen in life, some people just have an emotional "need" to make some things "true" -- like a deity, or racial supremacy, or that their parents and elders wouldn't lie to them -- so they find ways to pretend and deny what every one else tells them.

Science is not absolute. But some people want absolute truth so they don't have to think. Theories change and adapt to explain observable phenomena. There are many examples of people clinging to outmoded theories and then finally realising that they were wrong and things have changed.

If you continue to believe in something that has been proven to be demonstrably false, there's no "different side" or "alternative facts." It's just not true.

Throwing in wants and beliefs, Bradly, and evidence-less religious myths and wishes with scientific pursuit of fact is a contaminating ploy and brings to mind the old saying,

"If we are discussing horses it would seem out of place to mix in donkeys, and proceed to discuss them altogether." Norman Totten.

Another old saying, "A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. Stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact."

Odd how often stupidity wins. Strength in numbers . . .? or, The Joker is Wild? The latter for recent events I would say.

Right on, Anybody. Well said.

You could be *somebody* with a statement like that. :)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree. When Henry (or anyone) says that
> reality extends beyond science, that is either
> true in the sense that science is an incomplete
> body of knowledge or false because science is a
> discipline for understanding reality and hence
> cannot per se be right or wrong.

I agree. But there is an active and often intellectually aggressive segment of science that is confused about this issue; insisting that science, or the known laws of nature, represent *all* that there is; or can explain everything. Prominent science writer Sean Carroll expresses this view repeatedly, and it is quite commonly expressed, either expressly or implicitly. It is often expressed as a reaction against religious excesses, which I understand. But it is still false.
________________________________________

> As soon as one asserts that something is both
> beyond science and true, all sorts of problems
> arise because there is no reliable standard on
> which to conclude anything about truth. This is
> God of the Gaps stuff: while faith-based belief
> constantly cedes ground as science advances,
> science replaces that belief with demonstrable
> facts. It is science that pushes God ever further
> into the shadows.

Well, I agree here too, but with the caveat that the problem creates scientific overreaching. It is one thing to criticize religion in the name of science, while pointing out scientific successes in displacing traditional religious doctrines, but it is quite another to go on to insist upon a materialist worldview that dismisses or discounts any transcendent aspect of human nature, and undermines human values. This is happening within some scientific quarters, and is exemplified in Crick's hypothesis that human beings are nothing more than the operation of their mechanistic, deterministic brains.
________________________________________
>
> The most one can say about that which is not
> scientifically proved is that it could be
> true--and that is exactly what an agnostic would
> say about God.

Well, no. In the first place, science is not about "proof" it is about explanation. But, secondly, there is much that is part of fundamental reality that science cannot "prove" but is known to a high level or certainty to be true. Consciousness, mathematics, and logical reasoning are examples; as I noted.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science does not have ALL the answers. Science
> does not have ALL the facts, ALL the evidence.
> Science does not define reality. They are the
> search for reality. They are a wonderful work in
> progress not afraid to self correct.

I find this too idealistic and naïve. Science (scientists) usually are quick to admit they do not have all the answers, facts and evidence. (Otherwise, what are they still pursuing?) But many scientists *do* define reality in strictly scientific terms; and specifically are "reductionists," meaning that they define all reality as ultimately reducible to the materialistic laws of physics. (i.e. no mental entities thus no mental causation.)

I just want to point out that D&D was describing science. You have equivocated and changed the argument to be about the beliefs of some scientists. The beliefs of some scientists aren't the same thing as science. If you've intended to dispute the points made by D&D, you haven't.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just want to point out that D&D was describing
> science. You have equivocated and changed the
> argument to be about the beliefs of some
> scientists. The beliefs of some scientists aren't
> the same thing as science. If you've intended to
> dispute the points made by D&D, you haven't.

I think that is a fair point.

However, "science" is an abstract general term that ultimately encompasses the processes, procedures, theories, successes, and failures of scientists in their attempts to understand the material world. So, it is arguably debatable whether "science" and "scientists" can be distinguished here to support your point.

That said, it is certainly fair to question whether I have taken a mere segment of the scientific community and over-generalized to science proper when I said:

"But many scientists *do* define reality in strictly scientific terms; and specifically are "reductionists," meaning that they define all reality as ultimately reducible to the materialistic laws of physics. (i.e. no mental entities thus no mental causation.)"

From my perspective, I *do* think the above "reductionist" point is applicable to the scientific tradition generally, and still dominant; at least in physics. But certainly the trend today is away from such a rigid view, where now terms like "emergence" "complexity theory" "information theory" etc. are taking root to challenge reductionism. "Science," of course, encompasses these alternatives as well, and that fact alone makes your point well-taken.

Thanks for pointing it out.

It is too late for Reality. The importance of evidence, fact, and reason has been on life support for a very long time now. As of January 6th , 2021, the plug was pulled and the last gasp sputtered into oblivion. Dignity was not present.

Il Duce is on the way out. That is the first step towards the rebirth of (perceived) reality. The battle will never be "won" since humans, some more than others, love their fantasies.

Yet some eras are more honest than others and it is at least possible that we are headed into a period of relative fidelity to truth. We'll see how far that goes in part by watching the Kool-Aid crowd but also by observing how the evangelicals and others react.

But we must in any case be vigilant. As Nietzsche, Orwell, Hoffer, and others have warned, a very large part of humanity are sheep who prefer a shepherd to the uncertainties and muddiness of constitutional democracy. The danger of populist obscurantism will always be with us.

I am trying to find the glimmer of hope that you have.

What has weighed me down is the constant thought the hopelessness I feel often these days, is the way many, perhaps a majority around the world feel on a daily basis year after year with their governments behaving the way ours just did on a daily basis.

Started with the grocery shelves stripped of everything last March. Not even toilet paper. Now it isn't the toilet paper that is gone, but the certainty of a bright future.

I have more empathy for the rest of the world now. Much more. Seeing the bombed cities, the search for food and clean water. And at the same time the fear for all of us here that we are joining them instead of lifting them out.


The siege and the inability to find common ground in our divided country is only a symptom. One hand no longer washes the other. You can't give with a clenched fist. It holds nothing but anger.

I share both your optimism and concern.

Sometimes I think we need to step back from our despair and celebrate the wonderful capacity of human beings to be rational; instead of decrying the multitudes that seem irrational! I personally think human nature is fundamentally rational (after all isn't that what evolution tells us?) As such, there will always be hope that rationality will prevail.

Of course, this does not dictate where such rationality will lead. That question depends not only upon one's rational assessment of facts, and the making of valid inferences, but also on one's assignment of values. So, the problem does not necessarily end with rationality!

If I take a stance in the debate, a fantasy that I stand ”outside” the dominant religion in the west and take a psychological position to get a ”perspective”. I end up with this.

Everybody starts with assumptions about humanity.

Enlightenment has the same problem as Christianity.

Sin = all people can not see or do anything right, they need work or grace (fight between camps)

Prejudice vs science = all People can not see or do anything right, they need scientific experts in their life. (ideological experts fight about who is right or wrong)


"Before Gadamer, hermeneutics (attempting to emulate the natural sciences) sought to determine the truth of texts with reference to a meaning that was the same at all places and at all times. However, Gadamer recognised that our necessary situatedness meant, not just that such a transcendental meaning was beyond us, but it did not ask the correct question—what were the conditions of interpretation? ... Most importantly however, to not recognise our initial throwness in which our traditions shape our understanding (our ‘effective historical consciousness) is to demonstrate what Gadamer referred to as Enlightenment thinking’s ‘prejudice toward prejudice’." [3]”

http://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/06/17/hans-georg-gadamer-hermeneutics

One practical tip to get the most concrete view out of a text.

Use a Parts of speech tagger that remove adjectives.

As an autist I have problem with adjectives.

There are some troubling ideas presented in the article. They want a nation that has less misinformation, conspiracies', but to do it they are advocating censoring people more...

"Private technology companies such as Facebook that facilitate the spread of conspiracy theories and other false content should be regulated."

Who's to say what is a conspiracy theory? For example Hydroxychloriquin is a perfectly good drug that has been used in Mexico and Africa for generations, but folks have been banned and even doctors have been banned on Facebook for advocating it. Because Trump said it was good. And Big tech hates him.

Then they want the government to control the press.

"Putting the onus of monitoring misinformation on government regulation would lighten the load for journalists and researchers who have been stretched thin by the task."

Sounds like a call back to the dark ages, When the Catholic Church was controlling the press, stopping books from being printed, the holy roman inquisition. Need I say more?

Trusting our fate to supposed enlightened intellectuals is probably the worst thing we can do. The article is basically garbage,... I apologize for saying it.

Hydroxychloroquine is effective for treating malaria.

But it's not effective against COVID-19, and there is misinformation and cult propaganda promoting it for that purpose. That's what you didn't say.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

https://www.biospace.com/article/large-study-suggests-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-doesn-t-help-covid-19/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 10:12AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/now-is-
> the-time-to-reestablish-reality/
>
> Now Is the Time to Reestablish Reality
>
> "We need to agree on the evidence — so we can
> disagree on what to do in light of it."

There is no 'baseline reality' we can agree upon here at RfM.
This group made that abundantly clear already.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2353232,2354956#msg-2354956

We are no better than the rest of America, which is nuttier than squirrel shit.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
>
> We are no better than the rest of America, which
> is nuttier than squirrel shit.


But that's what makes us so much fun!

Keep posting, schrodingerscat. The debates that surround your posts are enlightening to many, I'm sure.

Are you getting to first baseline with him or is this a home run fun?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no 'baseline reality' we can agree upon
> here at RfM.
> This group made that abundantly clear already.

There is always a baseline reality in a debate. The baseline reality is that objective facts (whatever they turn out to be) and objective reasoning (whatever that turns out to be) matter. Otherwise there would be no point in stating anything, much less arguing any position.

This mutual commitment implies that there is a point to debating the facts stated and the logical inferences made by others--even if it seems futile at times.

The message(debating) is the medium(the debate.) We are all masters.

I was working under the assumption that the baseline reality of RfM was that the church sucks, it hurts people, and getting out from under its sway can be difficult, and that we're here to help, if at all possible.

I didn't think this was a graduate school for any particular 'way of life' or philosophies. And I certainly didn't suspect that American political points of view were of any particular value 'mongst those recovering from mormonism. Although in retrospect I can see that mormonism and Americanism have some gooey connections.

But how come we never got around to discussing Brexit? I have a personal friend, an ArchVicar of the Church of England (Reformed) who was hot to trot on that subject!

To be completely honest, I come here for the jokes, and you tell some of the best ones!

The rest is side benefit. Sometimes I even learn things!

"So that's all I am to you, a Joke!!"

Muchisimas gracias Don Humberto! No me llegan muchos de lo que se llamen 'flores' y te agradezdo esta flor.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was working under the assumption that the
> baseline reality of RfM was that the church sucks,
> it hurts people, and getting out from under its
> sway can be difficult, and that we're here to
> help, if at all possible.

That's exactly what I suggested in the "baseline reality" thread and was roundly criticized for assuming that we could actually agree on a baseline reality. In fact, this is your response.

"When two individuals, with different views and conflicting perspectives, meet to discuss a common future, there will be no useful outcome.

Which is pretty much all one expects of the OP's threads. Yes, I know that I am no better, but I make no claim that such is the case. And sometimes I'm funny!

I hope that we can maintain some cordiality regarding the theme that the mormon church is a suck-bucket and that doing what one can to promote an end to its utility is a worthy goal. That would be nice. It might even be On Topic, n'cest pas? ¿Que les parece?"


So fuck agreeing that there's any kind of a "baseline reality" then, did I get that right?

Well, sir, I took your initial entre into this field as being that of a seeker of Ultimate Truth, or the Tao... It seemed to me that you wanted us to agree that the wisdom you were offering us, endorsed as it was by Big Thinkers, was the be-all and end-all of human existence and that we were fools for not climbing on your band wagon, or as I like to think of, Taoing the Line...

All I imagined I was doing was taking a stab at ID'ing an RfM baseline, using already established Protocols of Zion...

"Baseline Reality" is way, way above my pay grade, soldier.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, sir, I took your initial entre into this
> field as being that of a seeker of Ultimate Truth,
> or the Tao... It seemed to me that you wanted us
> to agree that the wisdom you were offering us,
> endorsed as it was by Big Thinkers, was the be-all
> and end-all of human existence and that we were
> fools for not climbing on your band wagon, or as I
> like to think of, Taoing the Line...
>
> All I imagined I was doing was taking a stab at
> ID'ing an RfM baseline, using already established
> Protocols of Zion...
>
> "Baseline Reality" is way, way above my pay grade,
> soldier.

OK. Forget "Baseline" apparently there is a 'reality' we, rational people, who trust evidence above feelings, myths and conspiracy theories, should all be able to agree upon, hopefully.

The baseline reality of RfM is,

1. The (Mormon) church sucks. It hurts people.
2. Getting out from under its sway can be difficult,
3. We're here to help, if at all possible.

I agree, although I'd probably state it differently.

The MORmON CULT is an abusive fraud.
I'm here to speak up for those victims the abusive CULT has silenced, by encouraging them to stand up for themselves and not allow the abuse to continue for another GOD DAMNED minute.

(EDITED to add: GOD DAMNED)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 03:07PM by schrodingerscat.

Holy shizz! We may be in Biblical Last Days!

A little pompous by my low-life standards, but I can live with it.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy shizz! We may be in Biblical Last Days!
>
> A little pompous by my low-life standards, but I
> can live with it.

"pomous" is what you call 6 pages of well documented abuse?
Reality is, I've got all the links to all the lawsuits against the abusive Mormon Cult, settled in favor of my best friends all of whom were abused or worse, by one man, our Mormon Scout Master, who was, at the time, a known pedophile. A child rapist. People in the community knew. He came with a record. Not a criminal record, but a record in the abusive CULT of Joseph's Myth, of Doomsday Sheep, whose leaders have all been sued for millions of dollars, because they were far more interested in "protecting the good name of the church" than they were in protecting me and my best friends from being raped, blackmailed, terrorized by a KNOWN child rapist they let get to most of us. But not me, thankfully. I was the ugly one I guess. I don't know what it was. Actually I do.
Growing up the only way you EARNED a right to drive a car was if you EARNED an Eagle Scout Merit Badge, which pretty much set you up for life. But my Mormon Father was forced into getting his Eagle Scout and didn't like being forced to do anything, so he refused to force me to do anything.
I was driving when I was 12 years old, in the middle of the night from the Puget Sound to the Ocean, with my Dad to go fishing. Just the two of us. It was great.
My friends were not so lucky.
Their dads were all big important guys, like Orthodontists, DEntists, and Engineers. Waaaaay too busy to spend time with their sons outdoors because they were big important patriarchs in their families and community.
And they forced their sons into being Eagle Scouts with a pedophile for a scout master, who, predictably got to 75% of my Mormon friends growing up.

They can't speak up, due to "Non Disclosure Agreements" NDA's they got paid millions for. But I can. I can say whatever I want. I, fortunately didn't get abused by this child rapist and as a result didn't take part in the lawsuit, but I did give my deposition in their case, which they won, while I was Mormon. That is why I am no longer Mormon. I couldn't stand being put in the positon where I knew these bastards leading this CULT were lying to protect sexual predators, I know they lied, 3 Bishops, my GD Nazi MORmON Sister, A dentist and the worst the GD Oral Surgeon who pulled my wisdom teeth when I went on a Mission.

And that's "pompous" to you?

I am their voice.
And my voice is sometimes outrageous.
They have a GD right to be outrageous!
And so do I, on their behalf.

On behalf of the silenced.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2021 03:53PM by schrodingerscat.

Guy, documenting abuses committed by the Morg doesn't make you pompous. Saying things like "I am their voice" makes you pompous.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guy, documenting abuses committed by the Morg
> doesn't make you pompous. Saying things like "I am
> their voice" makes you pompous.

I speak up because they've been silenced through legal agreements or fear of being disowned and can't tell their story.
I can. So I do. And I speak up for all the other victims of Joseph's Myth. Like the 5 generations of my family before me who were defrauded. And I speak up for my children and their children so they know how to recognize a fraud and don't become victims of this abusive Doomsday CULT or any other abusive entity. That's not pompous, it's called empathy.
You might try it.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can. So I do. And I speak up for all the other
> victims of Joseph's Myth.

You are all about the baseline but you don't speak for me. I am a victim of sexual abuse related to the morg.

Your Aristotle pathos be damned.

> ...On behalf of the silenced.

No one should have to be poked by his scoutmaster to make a few million dollars, but someone, at some point during the process, made the decision to take the money and sign the NDA and the victims either had to or were willing to go along with it.

(Okay, this is just me being argumentative; I really don't have any strong feelings about this, other than that the church is a fraud and has been given sufficient money to cover its fraudulent ass, when necessary.)

Your buddies, their parents, and their legal counsels sold the rest of humanity down the river for easy money. No one forced them to sign the NDAs. How many people have suffered since then because of their selfishness?

Sure, go ahead and say that closing the case as quickly as possible started their healing process that much sooner for them. But they had the opportunity to broadcast just how evil and corrupt the church is, to possibly, hopefully, spare future victims, but instead, they decided to become accomplices; they took the money in exchange for their silence and gave the church that lovely release of all claims that states, in effect, "By signing this we withdraw any and all claims that naughty things happened" thus allowing the church to say, "No one has won a lawsuit against us, which implies we are as pure as the driven snow, so help us our made-up ghawd."

Is your deposition extant? Just curious. In the civil cases I was involved in, the depo booklets were not gathered up and destroyed, but they were not cases that ended up settling via NDAs.


> ...and the worst the GD Oral Surgeon
> who pulled my wisdom teeth when I
> went on a Mission. (oh, the pain!)

So all that drama, all that pain, the recognition of how evil church leaders can be (and by extension, the church), and off on your mission you went?

Well, that really showed the church what you thought of them and their actions! Zowie, how they must have suffered at your display of righteous indignation!


I see a conflict of interest, here... I think you're re-writing history in order to make yourself the star of the movie, but it's still a lousy movie. I've always found the scene where you become an atheist on 9/11/2001 especially nauseating.

I couldn't agree more.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I see a conflict of interest, here... I think
> you're re-writing history in order to make
> yourself the star of the movie, but it's still a
> lousy movie. I've always found the scene where
> you become an atheist on 9/11/2001 especially
> nauseating.

You summed up the pompousness better than I did, old dog. Thank you.

Couldn't you argue about the terms you have in common that you refuse to agree on?

The problem with Mormonism is that it requires you to believe things which are patently false.

Climate change denial, flat earth, etc are all examples of denying objective, scientific fact based reality -- just like Mormonism.

If someone keeps insisting that reality is not real and opinion is fact and fact is not fact, you can't have a realistic discussion.

If you live in an alternate reality, how can I present any evidence to you? All you have to do is say it's not real and dismiss it.

I will stand and be counted amongst those whose reality declares la iglesia mormona to be a fraud!

Now what?

But I was referring to the kitty, not you :)

"Taoing the line" ha!
Esto es de lo que hablo!
Aun mas flores por Ud.!

I'm feeling a little like Stevie Nicks at the end of a concert!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmPgMc3R8zg

Don't do drugs!