Debate discussion
Religion
>
Anyone telling the Truth?
date
newest »
newest »
I know I'm going to be hammered for this but yes, Nathan's right. We who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons, do believe that we have the whole truth.
lol oh yes. I love me some Mor(m)ons <3
Mormon creator? Sorry but I'm laughing a little on the inside.
I'm assuming what was meant by that was Joseph Smith, but yeah, that was worded totally awkwardly.
Joseph Smith didn't make it up all up, but that's okay.
Thank you, I've realized that fact. They've never tried to make me believe it. Very young? Where's your guess at, just for curiosity. My question still remains the same though, have you read it?
They've never tried to make you believe it? Hahaha. I can hardly even take that seriously.
Xox wrote: "J wrote: "They've never tried to make you believe it? Hahaha. I can hardly even take that seriously."I don't believe that for a second. I see her as a brainwashed child. "
I'm not brainwashed but you still haven't answered my questions though.
Jessi wrote: "I've read parts of it. I have a copy."What do you think of it? What parts have you read?
I've only looked up parts here and there that I've read about online, trying to put them into context. It didn't help much, really, because I don't really know the history/context of the different books and I don't know of a good resource to help put those things into perspective. I'm currently reading some stuff on Judaism and Islam, and after I'm through with that I was planning on looking more into Mormonism.
You should read the book from beginning to end.
I plan to at some point. But I know how it came to be, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nothing significant as far as religious history goes took place in America.
Don't they uh, take you to church?
Does the dictionary really say that? Huh....wait were do you live, if you don't mind me asking? And what about my other question? How old do you guess me to be?
Well, actually I haven't read all of the Bible, I've read most of teh New Testament and parts of the Old Testament. And I've read the Book of Mormon all the way through and am reading it a a second time, I'm actually studying it this time and I'm enjoying it much more. How much of it have you actually read?
J wrote: "Don't they uh, take you to church?"Yes...? Why?
Stephanie wrote: "J wrote: "Don't they uh, take you to church?"
Yes...? Why?"
And they've taken you to church for probably your entire life?
Yes...? Why?"
And they've taken you to church for probably your entire life?
You said "They've never tried to make me believe it." That is absolutely false because taking you to church before you could even choose for yourself, is trying to make you believe it.
In other words, is there a religion you can look at and say "This is a lot like it REALLY is"? Not even close. If the claims made by any religion were at all verifiable, it would cease to be a religion. Religion filled a hole (albeit with nonsense) when we knew much less than we do now. But now we don't need religion to tell us how it (supposedly) "really is." We know how "it really is," at least to a far, far greater extent than we did when these religions were being created, and how "it really is" doesn't resemble religion in the least.
Ah, this is all very interesting. I see that everyone except Stephanie is pretty much coming from the same place. Except that Xox is making insults...which isn't very nice.
Anyway. So, science is the place to look for reality. How it REALLY works is this: universe came into being, humans evolved through natural processes, and that is IT.
Ok. That's fine for the physical origins of humanity, but what do we make of the mental/emotional/spiritual discontent that is undeniably characteristic of the human experience? Our new-found scientific understanding of the human species does not seem to be alleviating the need, even of the nonreligious, for spiritual fulfillment (see how many wildly different methods are presented in that link!). This is a "hole" that is still as open as it has always been.
Why is this? I ask a slightly modified question: is there any philosophy, religious or non-religious, that addresses human discontent better than any other? And if not, where do we look for solutions? Science, still? How?
Our new-found scientific understanding of the human species does not seem to be alleviating the need, even of the nonreligious, for spiritual fulfillmentThis is question begging. What is the spirit? I'll grant you that people have mental and emotional needs, but not spiritual needs. The spirit (or, if you will, the soul) is something whose existence is only "known" through religion, and then, lo and behold, religion steps in selling the only peg to fill this hole. Before you're going to sell me on religion's ability to fulfill my spiritual needs, you're going to have to convince me that I have a spirit in the first place, that my spirit has needs and that fulfilling these needs is worth more than the $29.95 a month that religion is going to cost me.
You're also making an error in assuming that without religion we're left with nothing but science. Art, culture, human relationships - none of these things are science (although they can be examined scientifically), and yet none of them are religion (although they can be informed by religion). In addition to cultivating an empirical understanding of the world, I also have a deep love for music, literature, film, etc.; I travel, hike, kayak, bike, camp, etc.; I have friends, a girlfriend and a family. I am not one inch religious, and I am quite fulfilled. I feel no spiritual void; I feel no spiritual anything.
Religion may be selling the spiritual cure, but they're also selling the spiritual disease.
As for your modified question...
Why is this? I ask a slightly modified question: is there any philosophy, religious or non-religious, that addresses human discontent better than any other? And if not, where do we look for solutions? Science, still? How?
I don't know. I don't follow any particular philosophy. I try to stay consistent with my values, try to pursue my passions, and try to be good to other people, generally. That's about it. I'd gather that there probably isn't a single better-than-the-rest philosophy in anything but the vaguest sense. We're a diverse bunch, humans, and as much as one can imagine a set of principles to live by to achieve happiness and fulfillment, one can just as easily imagine a person who is fulfilled by exactly the opposite course.
Mod
I'm sorry to see you are still under the impression that the mind and body are two different things. This is simply not the case. The mind is not a separate being housed in the brain, it is the brain. Which would make the mind the body and body mind. The mental and emotional aspects of ourselves that you seem to find so unlikely came about the same way our hands or eyes did. Because they are of the body, they are subject to natural selection. Everything about how our minds work is a product of natural selection just as much as any other body system. The "need" for art or human contact could be attributed to a dormant survival-based gene, a misfiring of a neuron, there are many things to think of before religion should even be considered at all.
Xox, You used the term mor{m}ons when debating with a Mormon. I guess Jessi did it first. But still.
I love this!Well, there is "spirit" as a term denoting some metaphysical reality, and then there's that more vague term "spirituality", which is what I'm getting at.
Religions and philosophies and the like have not developed, and continue to develop, to address mere unknowns. "Spirituality", in one sense, is that which can be fulfilled only through non-material means. Religions and philosophies, in general, are meant to provide this fulfillment
Regardless of scientific reality, I argue that humans have, in this sense, innate spiritual needs. One bit of evidence? The great number of materially comfortable people who are completely unsatisfied, and who actively seek out methods to address this.
I try to stay consistent with my values, try to pursue my passions, and try to be good to other people, generally.
That is a good example of a personal approach to "spiritual" need as defined above. I would ask next, from where do you get your values and decide what it means to be good? Is this personal outlook rooted in any prior system of thought*, or have you developed it all relative to your situation? For example, if someone lies to you in a business transaction, but telling lies is not something that he considers "bad", what do you make of it? Are you forced to concede the absolute relativism of morals, or do you say his philosophy is rooted in something that is not as "right", or as "good", as where yours comes from?
*(in which case, does it resemble any specific religious outlook more than others? That's what I was getting at with the original question.)
Lauren,The knowledge you put there is ONE way of looking at it - specifically, from a strictly science-based philosophy. But I would not be so secure in claiming that this is the end of the story.
The "need" for art or human contact could be attributed to a dormant survival-based gene, a misfiring of a neuron, there are many things to think of before religion should even be considered at all.
That may all be perfectly true, but I argue that the dissemination of this knowledge, even if true, is insufficient to give people spiritual fulfillment (as defined in the post above.
Here's a thing to consider: if I feel the need to write a song in response to the lovely cloudy 28-degree sky outside, is it because my neurons reacted in a certain way in mediating my mood and a visual stimulus? Or does the pattern of my neurons firing simply reflect my artistic desire? One could give me a drug that changes the molecular dynamics in my neurons and thus my reaction to the view outside. Or one could give me bad news which changes my reaction to the view outside and thus the molecular dynamics in my neurons.
What is prior to the other? Can we say "neuron firing brings about artistic desire" any more than we can say "artistic desire brings about neuron firing"? I doubt there will ever be agreement. But don't be too confident that understanding the functioning of the brain from a genetic/evolutionary/molecular biological level is the end of the story when it comes to understanding the mind.
"Spirituality", in one sense, is that which can be fulfilled only through non-material means. Religions and philosophies, in general, are meant to provide this fulfillmentAgain, I don't know why you insist on calling this vague category of "non-material" needs "spirituality." What is the justification for doing so? "Spirituality" is an obviously loaded word, with deeply ingrained religious connotations. "Spirituality" is one of those words that seems to be used in purposefully vague ways; the word can be applied to literally every person alive, and then religion can step in to declare itself the prime fulfiller of such needs.
I don't know why (or how) you separate the metaphysical "spirit" from "spirituality." This doesn't seem like a reasonable distinction. The desires to have children, to be loved, to help others, etc., are all "non-material," but there's nothing magical or metaphysical about them. There's no reason to call these things "spiritual" other than (as far as I can tell) a desire to keep the word "spirituality" in the conversation.
Regardless of scientific reality, I argue that humans have, in this sense, innate spiritual needs. One bit of evidence? The great number of materially comfortable people who are completely unsatisfied, and who actively seek out methods to address this.
Again, there's nothing necessarily "spiritual" about these needs, unless we use the outrageously vague definition of "spirituality" as anything "non-material." These wealthy people may not have satisfying relationships or experiences. Maybe they never partied in their twenties and thirties because they were too busy making money, and they are saddened by their lost youth. This has nothing to do with the spirit. These "needs" can all be definied in terms much more specific and precise than "non-material."
The use of the word "spirituality" in such a broad way seems to be the first step in an impending equivocation of the catch-all "spirituality" with the metaphysical, magical, religious "spirituality." It would be more appropriate to simply define the (categories of) non-material needs without first assuming the presence of a "spirit," and only then ask if religion offers any means to address these needs that don't require a pre-emptive buy-in to religion's unfounded premises. I'd venture that religion offers some social benefits, but is otherwise pretty useless: in order to address the vague emptiness you may feel, it must first convince you that this emptiness is a deficit of the soul so that it can sell you its proprietary soul cure, when the emptiness might just be a desire to have more meaningful interpersonal relationships.
I would ask next, from where do you get your values and decide what it means to be good? Is this personal outlook rooted in any prior system of thought*, or have you developed it all relative to your situation?
I think there are basic, innate (i.e. evolved) moral "rules," such as the golden rule, and that your life experience shapes the way these ideas manifest themselves in a set of values. Certainly religion has informed my values, as I was raised Catholic and was a believer into my teens. However, I don't subscribe to values, nor accept values pushed down from an authority. Whatever values I consider - whether encountered or invented - I look for what resonates, and I try to logically assess these ideas for soundness.
Are you forced to concede the absolute relativism of morals, or do you say his philosophy is rooted in something that is not as "right", or as "good", as where yours comes from?
I don't concede to absolute moral relativism. I judge actions based on my own values. What I think is wrong, I think is wrong. Just because this businessman might have a set of personal values that holds lying as "right" or at least "not wrong," I don't feel any obligation to respect this set of values; this person simply has, in my view, a flawed or overly flexible set of values. I think a set of values should be perfectly transferrable; that is, you should be able to move yourself to any position in the equation and be satisfied with the result. I doubt this businessman would happily be on the receiving end of a self-serving, manipulative lie.
in which case, does it resemble any specific religious outlook more than others? I'm not enough of a scholar of world religions to know what religion's tenets most closely resemble my own. But I also don't know what the point of such knowledge would be. In order to get my values to resemble those of any religion I know, I'd have to first strip that religion of its fealty to a supernatural being, its mysticism, and so on - basically, strip it of its religion. What's the point of this? If (some of) a religion's values resemble my own, that is simply a testament to the human ability to arrive at a useful moral code regardless of superstition.
I have no desire to say that I am most closely aligned with Hinduism, or whatever. I have no desire to find a religion that "works" for me. All religions have some supernatural, unfounded element - that's what makes them religions and not just philosophies - and I reject this outright.
Mod
"Spirituality" is one of those words that seems to be used in purposefully vague ways; the word can be applied to literally every person alive, and then religion can step in to declare itself the prime fulfiller of such needs.Yeah, it has been, it can be, and religion and certainly has done so.
So instead of spirituality, let's call it X. X is the thing that makes us human. What gives us a good idea of what X is? Literature and stories and ideas - the continual repetition of themes throughout history that demonstrate universal human characteristics.
X is the thing that humans seek to fulfill, that animals don't seek to fulfill. Is it a product of a metaphysical spirit or merely natural processes? Who knows. But the point is, it does exist as part of the mental/emotional makeup of humans.
Everyone holds on to SOMETHING in order to address X. For many it's a religion. For many others its a certain philosophy or way of life. Some believe they are addressing the needs of a "spirit". Some look to achieve a "oneness". Some look to simply find deep contentment that is not based solely on circumstances. Some seek contentment by improving their circumstances (this usually does not work so well).
But everyone must deal with X. And for me, a large component of that is feeling confident that the things that I "know" are true. Certainly, there is a Truth - either everything is natural or there is some metaphysical reality.
But science is not enough to convince me either way. Neither is history. Maybe it is for others. Fine. But this is why I asked the original question - for a slightly more philosophical approach. A silly question? Maybe. Maybe in the context. Perhaps a poll of 100 people with differing beliefs would be the way to go. Imagine how interesting that would be - to see what religion 100 different people match, even (especially) hypothetically, to their own pursuit of fulfilling X!
In order to get my values to resemble those of any religion I know, I'd have to first strip that religion of its fealty to a supernatural being, its mysticism, and so on - basically, strip it of its religion.
Dan,
That's just what I was interested in. Take away the supernatural, see how it lines up, then put the supernatural back on and go "Oh, that DOES make it stupid", or "Hmmm..."
But I can totally see where you would ask "what's the point of this?" To one comfortable in the truth of what they believe, there isn't a point, is there?
You lost me after face cream X.So we're talking about fulfillment now? Read an Oprah magazine. :D
You guys are mean to Mormons. Sure they can be jerks that tell you that you're going to hell because you weren't baptized when you're 8, but they can also be smart, educated people opposing Prop 8 and eating healthy, etc.
I think that Mormons are probably the best religion to follow physical health-wise (get outside, work out, eat small portions, etc.), Buddhists spirit-wise (be nice to people, don't buy too much stuff, meditate and relax everyday, etc.),
And Scientology reality wise. (I'm totally kidding)
I don't think there's any religion that is very close to reality, but i like religions that don't tell me to worship someone in the sky. But I'm also a big fan of religions that come up with new, realistic, thought out ways to connect things.
*Nathan's reply will look something like this:
Riley, not only are you wrong, but you are *insert swear word of choice here* wrong! Religion is the most mindless thing man has thought of and serve no purpose!
Only with a little more swear words and insults to my face, mind, and family.
:D Gotta love that guy. :P
Riley, thanks for bringing another perspective in here. That's kind of the response type I was imagining when I put the question up (that is, if there were to be any responses at all).Would you say something like "Buddhism describes a method (or set of principles) for approaching life that most adequately addresses the reality of the way that humans really "are", mentally/emotionally/spiritually."?
Or maybe not using "most", but "more" - i.e. "Buddhism more adequately...than Islam", for example.
Xox,
So we're talking about fulfillment now? Read an Oprah magazine.
This is what I mean, Xox. X isn't the thing that anyone's selling, it's the need for a variation of that thing. X is the thing that makes Oprah popular. Unless you'd argue that Oprah has tricked her multitude of viewers into believing that they have a need to for fulfillment in life. But all indications are that they come willingly seeking. This kind of story repeats itself, in and out of the context of religious metaphysics, over and over again...some might call it human nature.
Xox, do you argue that there is nothing we can even define as "human nature"? Because that's quite another place to go.
Xox wrote: "//So we're talking about fulfillment now? Read an Oprah magazine. :D//Not for me. But if it is your religion, go for it.
Mormonism is a shit religion. But if you like shit, it is your thing too. "
Heh heh, I love how you ignored everything else in my post.
And, why do you think Mormonism is a 'shit religion'? I'm just curious to see your viewpoints, seeing as I spend every day surrounded by Mormons and they seem like A-Okay people...most of the time. I don't agree with most of the stuff in the Book of Mormon, but, I'm not Mormon.
Some of their stuff is realistic, I guess. I mean, who can argue with someone telling you not to murder people? (please don't answer that) But I agree, most of it is ridiculous nonsense.
It is not human nature to want or need face cream.On a superficial level, no. But might it be human nature to desire youth?
You could spend an unlimited amount of money advertising a face cream that you allege to "cause wrinkles", and you wouldn't make a single sale.
You don't get youth by using face cream, just like you don't get meaning of life or some bullshit if you get religion. But that is how they sell their products, be it face cream or religion.Yes. And the advertising works, time and again. I simply make the point above that this is because the advertising addresses an element of "human nature" in some form. I make no claim regarding the efficacy of the product itself.
In other words, is there a religion you can look at and say "This is a lot like it REALLY is"?
Or do they all meet somewhere in an unclaimed middle?