TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What is the worst things with YOUR country? :p
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by mongeone To beleive that there isn`t a God takes just as big a step in faith as to believe that there is a God.

No it doesn't. Knowing that something you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel probably doesn't exist is surely one of the primary foundations of a sane mind. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist - why should this admission constitute a leap of faith?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No it doesn't. Knowing that something you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel probably doesn't exist is surely one of the primary foundations of a sane mind. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist - why should this admission constitute a leap of faith?

Can you prove it doesnt exist? No, you cant (unless you are the most amazing philosopher to have ever existed). Therefore it is a leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as a god.

quote:

Originally posted by mongeone Can you prove it doesnt exist? No, you cant (unless you are the most amazing philosopher to have ever existed). Therefore it is a leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as a god.

Since when did rational skepticism come to be regarded as a "leap of faith"? Do you consider the rejection of the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter bunny as a leap of faith? Granted it's not quite the same, but I'm sure you follow the logic. Remember, aetheism is not the belief that there is no God but a rejection of the belief that there is a God (well weak atheism at any rate, but how many people can you find who are strong atheists?). Subtle but important distinction.

quote:

Originally posted by mongeone Can you prove it doesnt exist? No, you cant (unless you are the most amazing philosopher to have ever existed). Therefore it is a leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as a god.

The onus lies upon the person making the claim to give supporting evidence of that claim. The burden is never upon the other person to attempt to prove a negative.

By your logic, since no one can prove that Allah, Buddha, and the Christian God do not exist, along with Zeus, Athena, or any other religious Deity, we must therefore assume that they all exist.

Are you willing to accept that possibility of multiple gods and goddesses?

quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance Gay Marriage is unacceptable in my view and will always be such. The difference between most of you and me is the following 1)I live by different standards, you live by the world's narrow minded view of happiness and self fulfillment, where the world says if it feels good do it and as long as you are not hurting others, it's ok. I live by God's standards where his guidelines are what guides my life, he is my happiness and the reason that I have joy. 2)You view the Bible as a bunch of old people making crap up and you view it as a book with errors. I view it as error free and will always have that opinion. 3)99.9999% of you don't understand the Bible or Christianity and your tainted views don't hold water imo. You can generalize all you want and most of you tend to do that. 4)I'd say nearly 100% of you lack that total sense of fulfillment and you are searching for something to fill that empty hole in your life. The difference with me is that hole is filled in my life and will always be.

---------
I agree with you pal, l know what you mean

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Buddha

Just to nitpick, the Buddha isn't really considered a god -- most Buddhist traditions look on him as fully human.

quote:

Originally posted by mr.anderson --------- I agree with you pal, l know what you mean

Care to explain why, or are you just here to cheerlead?

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Care to explain why, or are you just here to cheerlead?

no, l won't , l don't like arguing about subjects like this

quote:

Originally posted by mongeone Can you prove it doesnt exist? No, you cant (unless you are the most amazing philosopher to have ever existed). Therefore it is a leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as a god.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The onus lies upon the person making the claim to give supporting evidence of that claim. The burden is never upon the other person to attempt to prove a negative.

But why talk about burden of proof, when the subject matter is belief? If something is backed up by a proof then we have knowledge - if it is backed up by a scientific proof then we have a scientific fact. Believing in a deity is something else.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are you willing to accept that possibility of multiple gods and goddesses?

Yes - I'm willing to accept the possibility. I do not attribute a high degree of belief in them, but I'd acknowledge their potential existence.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Remember, aetheism is not the belief that there is no God but a rejection of the belief that there is a God

How does that differ from being a agnostic then

quote:

Originally posted by occrider but how many people can you find who are strong atheists?

I would say that PVD & T[]C is in that category.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No it doesn't. Knowing that something you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel probably doesn't exist is surely one of the primary foundations of a sane mind. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist - why should this admission constitute a leap of faith?

Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

people who don't know the definition of "liberal"

The worst things about Australia:

• Racism and Xenophobia. Despite the common belief that our society is multicultural, i still see and hear racism everywhere i go, and it is truly saddening. Australia's treatment of the indigenous population (both historically and today) is particularly shameful.
  
  
• The treatment of asylum seekers. In my opinion, locking up women and children in detention centres in the middle of the desert for extended periods is unacceptable.
  
  
• John Howard and the current government.
  
  
• Increasing Americanisation of society and our culture. The pervasiveness of a globally homogeneous brand culture is worrying. ***I just read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein - BRILLIANT!**
  
  
• The poor state of football on a national scale. At the moment we have no national league and the administration of the game has been terrible. At the same time, soccer is the biggest sport in Australia on an amateur level. Why can't we make it work?
  
  
• Cost and availability of vinyl!
  
  
  
  

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic How does that differ from being a agnostic then

Weak agnosticism is neither the rejection nor the acceptance of theism or atheism. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. Furthermore the possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. Therefore if God were an easter bunny, the atheist would reject the belief in the existence of the easter bunny (probably due to lack of sufficient evidence proving his existence) while the agnostic would say that he doesn't know whether the bunny exists nor is he saying that other people cannot know of its existence. Strong agnosticism is the philosophy whereby knowledge of the Gods are impossible and therefore we can never ever prove nor disprove his existence. I think that strong agnostics are confused individuals, however, since they're adopting a self-refuting philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Weak agnosticism is neither the rejection nor the acceptance of theism or atheism. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. Furthermore the possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. Therefore if God were an easter bunny, the atheist would reject the belief in the existence of the easter bunny (probably due to lack of sufficient evidence proving his existence) while the agnostic would say that he doesn't know whether the bunny exists nor is he saying that other people cannot know of its existence. Strong agnosticism is the philosophy whereby knowledge of the Gods are impossible and therefore we can never ever prove nor disprove his existence. I think that strong agnostics are confused individuals, however, since they're adopting a self-refuting philosophy.

So how about someone who believes that knowledge of a potential God's intentions is impossible to obtain? I thought I was a strong agnostic, but I do see your point about meta-knowledge is also knowledge, and that by your definition it is logically impossible to be a strong agnostic.

Furthermore, I would like to know what you mean by the atheist rejecting the belief in God: Do you mean that he chooses not to believe in God or that he finds the belief in God logically flawed, and therefore is opposed to those who believe?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by trancaholic
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
but how many people can you find who are strong atheists?

I would say that PVD & T[]C is in that category.
--------

why? how do you know that they are ones?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic So how about someone who believes that knowledge of a potential God's intentions is impossible to obtain? I thought I was a strong agnostic, but I do see your point about meta-knowledge is also knowledge, and that by your definition it is logically impossible to be a strong agnostic.

That would be a strong agnostic imo ...

quote:

Furthermore, I would like to know what you mean by the atheist rejecting the belief in God: Do you mean that he chooses not to believe in God or that he finds the belief in God logically flawed, and therefore is opposed to those who believe?

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily denote being rational. While one would hope the decision was made with some kind of rationale, the definition of atheism solely consists of the rejection of the belief in God. So similar to theists, I'm certain atheists are atheists for any number of reasons rational or irrational.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic But why talk about burden of proof, when the subject matter is belief? If something is backed up by a proof then we have knowledge - if it is backed up by a scientific proof then we have a scientific fact. Believing in a deity is something else.

Why do you insist on making a distinction between belief in a deity and other sorts of belief? If I'd say that I believe in invisible pink unicornes, you would think that I'm either joking or that I'm a total wacko. So why believe in things for whom there is not even the slightest hint of their existance? Basically you can believe in anything, but a belief in any idea without a possibility of a rational explanation is not based on common sense and logic, infact it is based on absolutely nothing.

quote:

Yes - I'm willing to accept the possibility. I do not attribute a high degree of belief in them, but I'd acknowledge their potential existence.

How can you be willing to accept that possibility if every group of believers claims that their god or a congregation of gods are the only ones out there, and that all the others are false idols?

quote:

Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

How does belief become equivalent to knowledge?

quote:

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

In other words, religion is a tool which enables you to come up with any possible nonsense you can think of and claim it to be as valid (or even more valid) than any other proposal, including those based on observed facts. Believing in self-evident truths is one of the characteristics of a sane mind. Nobody is saying that there aren't truths that are not self evident, but they should not be considered believable until there is even a slightest hint of their existance.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Why do you insist on making a distinction between belief in a deity and other sorts of belief? If I'd say that I believe in invisible pink unicornes, you would think that I'm either joking or that I'm a total wacko. So why believe in things for whom there is not even the slightest hint of their existance? Basically you can believe in anything, but a belief in any idea without a possibility of a rational explanation is not based on common sense and logic, infact it is based on absolutely nothing.

I don't understand what other sorts of belief I have distinguished from the belief in a deity? I distinguish belief from knowledge.
Of course I would say that you are a wacko, if you said you believed in pink unicorns. That would be a scientific label, though. Your belief is a belief and seeing it as such I could find no quarrel with you having it. i might not share it, but I'd acknowledge the possibility of me being wrong and pink unicorns really existing.
However, when you come up with this deliberately ridiculous example, you must understand that there is quite a difference between this and the beliefs of religious people. There are litterally millions of people who claim to have spoken to "God" (whomever he might be). Similarly, there are lots of accounts of "miracles" happening. So even from the scientific/empirical point of view, there's a distinction between God and pink unicorns.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 How can you be willing to accept that possibility if every group of believers claims that their god or a congregation of gods are the only ones out there, and that all the others are false idols?

I'm willing to accept that either one of the beliefs might be correct. That's not the same as accepting that all of them could be correct at once.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 How does belief become equivalent to knowledge?

Bad choice of language I guess. My point is that, according to the scientific definition of existence, the existence of anything can be verified or rejected. Hence, any belief can in principle be converted into either knowledge (via verification) or negative knowledge (via rejection).

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 In other words, religion is a tool which enables you to come up with any possible nonsense you can think of and claim it to be as valid (or even more valid) than any other proposal, including those based on observed facts.

Not any possible nonsense. Only nonsense which do not conflict with your own observations.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Believing in self-evident truths is one of the characteristics of a sane mind.

Which means that you acknowledge that "self-evident truths" are beliefs? My initial point.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That would be a strong agnostic imo ...

You just insulted me, right?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Being an atheist doesn't necessarily denote being rational. While one would hope the decision was made with some kind of rationale, the definition of atheism solely consists of the rejection of the belief in God. So similar to theists, I'm certain atheists are atheists for any number of reasons rational or irrational.

The more this is elaborated upon, the more difficult I find it to see what differentiates a rejection of a belief and a belief in its negation? Maybe I really am a confused individual

YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!!!

WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO!!!



>JM<

I know you're kinda debating everyone at once here, trancaholic, so sorry for adding to your workload, but on what you said before....

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

I wasn't necessarily coming from a strictly scientific persepctive, but yes, I was coming from some sort of epistemological / empirical angle (two philosophical doctrines, of course, that are integral to the scientific method). Basically, it would be my contention, that we can only become aware of other beings through sensory input: flawed though they may be, our senses are our only gateway to the world of "other" beings. We can "conceive" of other beings without employing our senses (which would involve the manipulation of Kantian, synthetic a priori postulates I guess) but we cannot comprehend actual being - beyond that of our own - without them.

Now you'd be quite right in arguing that some things lay beyond our immediate senses, because - quite obviously - they do. The atom, for instance, exists in a physical capacity far too small for us to comprehend directly via our senses, but their existence can still be detected empirically. Even before we had the machinery to be able to do this, though, the physical nature of the universe as we understood it necessitated the existence of such a particle - like many other things in the history of astronomy and physics (such as Neptune, Pluto, black-holes etc.), the existence of the atom was logically derived from pre-existing empirical knowledge. So beings need not necessarily even be directly accessible to the senses, but its influences on other modes of being must be accessible in such a way before we can - with any confidence - postulate its existence.

Now with regards to the God question, there are two ways of looking at it - either its a statement of subjective inclination that is not intended as an ontological statement (the existence of any given mode of being) or it's a statement of professed objective knowledge, that is intended as an ontological statement.

Now you said:

quote:

But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

I believe that what you're trying to say here is that belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive, in the sense that it is impossible to equate statements of belief with statements of knowledge? If so, then I agree to an extent. Referring back to what I wrote earlier, I would deign belief as corresponding to the first way of looking at the "God question" (the statement of a subjective inclination) whereas knowledge would correspond to the second method (the statement of an objective ontology). However, with regards to the God question, statements of belief and statements of fact do cross over and they cannot be so easily separated. For instance, mongeone (the person I originally responded to) said:

quote:

To beleive that there isn`t a God takes just as big a step in faith as to believe that there is a God.

Note that his statement invokes belief, but at the same time it invokes "is-ness" which also makes it an ontological issue and thus - in some way - a question of not merely belief but (according to my previous definitions) knowledge as well. And it is at this point that the religious mind must understand that it cannot have it both ways. It is quite welcome to profess a belief in anything it wishes and it would be quite right to suggest that there is no possible way of invalidating this belief (due its essential and inexorable subjectivity). However, the second this belief transcends mere subjective inclination and an attempt is made to postulate being of some sort, then the religious mind can no longer hide behind the claim that it was a statement of "belief". As soon as an ontological claim (or even a mere inclination) is invoked, then I - or anyone else - is quite welcome to employ any empirical, epistemological or ontological method to either validate or invalidate these claims. The point at which mere "belief" becomes open to objective scrutiny, is the point at which it claims insight into some supposedly objective truth.

So this is why, to get to the point, whenever someone hints at the possibility of an existent God, us skeptics rush in demanding scientific evidence.

quote:

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

Heh, yes well played. Sanity is, unfortunately, most definitely in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I know you're kinda debating everyone at once here, trancaholic, so sorry for adding to your workload, but on what you said before....

Ah yes, seems like we have been here before: Some religious person spews out some claim promoting religion to some scientific category, some hardcore atheist replies, I reply, and the next thing I know, the entire Sceptics gang is on my case, whereas the hardcore atheist I replied to never returns to the thread
We need more people with the same opinion as me on this board...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I wasn't necessarily coming from a strictly scientific persepctive, but yes, I was coming from some sort of epistemological / empirical angle (two philosophical doctrines, of course, that are integral to the scientific method). Basically, it would be my contention, that we can only become aware of other beings through sensory input: flawed though they may be, our senses are our only gateway to the world of "other" beings. We can "conceive" of other beings without employing our senses (which would involve the manipulation of Kantian, synthetic a priori postulates I guess) but we cannot comprehend actual being - beyond that of our own - without them.

I agree with everything that you say here, except that I do not rule out the possibility of other means of input than that of the known physical senses.
Considering that the "workings" of the brain as described by neuroscience is frequently revised, I'm reluctant even to rule out the possibility of as of yet unknown physical senses.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Now you'd be quite right in arguing that some things lay beyond our immediate senses, because - quite obviously - they do. The atom, for instance, exists in a physical capacity far too small for us to comprehend directly via our senses, but their existence can still be detected empirically. Even before we had the machinery to be able to do this, though, the physical nature of the universe as we understood it necessitated the existence of such a particle - like many other things in the history of astronomy and physics (such as Neptune, Pluto, black-holes etc.), the existence of the atom was logically derived from pre-existing empirical knowledge. So beings need not necessarily even be directly accessible to the senses, but its influences on other modes of being must be accessible in such a way before we can - with any confidence - postulate its existence.

[RANT]Yet in cases such as the atom, the existence hinges on a series of logical deductions and inductions, of which some are beyond the comprehension of normal people. I find it ridiculous that some people attribute more belief in the existence of quarks than ghosts, as the reasoning process required to see the plausibility of existence of quarks has never been examined by them.[/RANT]
But that is besides the point, with this elaboration you are effectively restating the definition of existence to be that of something either
1) being seen, heard, etc. or
2) being a part of a scientific explanation of something which is existing according to 1.
Here "scientific" would mean mathematical/logical.
I still think that definition is a science definition of existence, and that it leaves no room for something whose existence is forever in doubt. Everything can have its existence either verified or rejected.
Maybe it's because of my delvings in probability theory, but with this worldview, I wouldn't use the term "belief" to discuss things which have yet to have their existence rejected or verified, but rather "expectation". We expect that there might not be dogs living on a planet in one of the neighbouring solar systems, but we can change that expectation into knowledge.
A belief, on the other hand, is a term which I would use outside of science, and in relation to another concept of "exist".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Now with regards to the God question, there are two ways of looking at it - either its a statement of subjective inclination that is not intended as an ontological statement (the existence of any given mode of being) or it's a statement of professed objective knowledge, that is intended as an ontological statement.

Agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I believe that what you're trying to say here is that belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive, in the sense that it is impossible to equate statements of belief with statements of knowledge?

Eh, more like what I tried to elaborate upon above. If existence is defined as by science, then the word believe stops having any meaning, and we should use "expect" or "know".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If so, then I agree to an extent. Referring back to what I wrote earlier, I would deign belief as corresponding to the first way of looking at the "God question" (the statement of a subjective inclination) whereas knowledge would correspond to the second method (the statement of an objective ontology).

Agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade However, with regards to the God question, statements of belief and statements of fact do cross over and they cannot be so easily separated.

If they are stated in a reckless manner, yes, but I don't see the inherent property of these statements which deems them unfit for belonging to one category?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade For instance, mongeone (the person I originally responded to) said: ... Note that his statement invokes belief, but at the same time it invokes "is-ness" which also makes it an ontological issue and thus - in some way - a question of not merely belief but (according to my previous definitions) knowledge as well.

Sorry, but I didn't get this invoking of "is-ness". Can you elaborate on that part?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And it is at this point that the religious mind must understand that it cannot have it both ways. It is quite welcome to profess a belief in anything it wishes and it would be quite right to suggest that there is no possible way of invalidating this belief (due its essential and inexorable subjectivity). However, the second this belief transcends mere subjective inclination and an attempt is made to postulate being of some sort, then the religious mind can no longer hide behind the claim that it was a statement of "belief".

If you add "scientific" in front of your "postulate", then I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade As soon as an ontological claim (or even a mere inclination) is invoked, then I - or anyone else - is quite welcome to employ any empirical, epistemological or ontological method to either validate or invalidate these claims. The point at which mere "belief" becomes open to objective scrutiny, is the point at which it claims insight into some supposedly objective truth.

Agree. But that reasoning can be reversed. The moment sceptics fail to stress that they are speaking of the scientific world view, their demands of evidence falls flat as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So this is why, to get to the point, whenever someone hints at the possibility of an existent God, us skeptics rush in demanding scientific evidence.

I get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Heh, yes well played. Sanity is, unfortunately, most definitely in the eye of the beholder.

As "common sense", "of course", and "naturally". I wish that people in Denmark sometimes would hesitate and revise the rules the live by, and discard those which are only there because of these "truths". (Trying to get the thread back on its original course)

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic We need more people with the same opinion as me on this board...

really, in 99.9 % of the cases i agree with you

but right now, i'm waaaaaay to wasted to say anything really

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ah yes, seems like we have been here before: Some religious person spews out some claim promoting religion to some scientific category, some hardcore atheist replies, I reply, and the next thing I know, the entire Sceptics gang is on my case, whereas the hardcore atheist I replied to never returns to the thread We need more people with the same opinion as me on this board...

There are plenty of religious people here, but when the non-theists argue amongst themselves, yeah, you seem to be on your own a bit.

quote:

I agree with everything that you say here, except that I do not rule out the possibility of other means of input than that of the known physical senses.

Here, are you discussing the possiblity that there are more senses than we currently know about or that there is some other non-sensory way of comprehending being? Is there anything specific you're talking about or are you just discussing general possibilities?

quote:

Considering that the "workings" of the brain as described by neuroscience is frequently revised, I'm reluctant even to rule out the possibility of as of yet unknown physical senses.

Interesting idea, but the "possibility" of additional senses suffers from the same problems as the "possibility" of God - is there any specific evidence (empirical or otherwise) we can point to that would give us any indication that these additional senses exist? If they do exist, how can they operate beyond our detection? Is there any reason you can give that would require me to suspend my disbelief in their existence?

quote:

[RANT]Yet in cases such as the atom, the existence hinges on a series of logical deductions and inductions, of which some are beyond the comprehension of normal people. I find it ridiculous that some people attribute more belief in the existence of quarks than ghosts, as the reasoning process required to see the plausibility of existence of quarks has never been examined by them.[/RANT]

Well I suppose that this is one of the difficulties of science - given its complex nature and the need to specialise in quite specific areas of study, we're all ultimately just surrendering ourselves to the authority of the scientist when attempting to understand the workings of the world around us. I'm willing to be that no-one on this forum has experienced enough or is knowledgable enough about atomic physics to provide a comprehensive proof here that atoms exist and as such, when we all say that "atoms exist", we're ultimately just accepting this stance upon the word of the scientific community.

Nonetheless, there are certain mechanisms in the scientific method that make this "word" trustworthy. Firstly the subject matter is objective, secondly the experiments are repeatable, thirdly consensus is generally reached between a number of scientists working independently before a "theory" is accepted as "fact". In other words, we can surrender ourselves to the authority of the scientific community on the basis that it is difficult for inaccurate ideas to prosper for very long before being invalidated.

With regards to quarks specifically, I don't really know enough about them (apart from the fact that they're subatomic particles) to comment.

quote:

But that is besides the point, with this elaboration you are effectively restating the definition of existence to be that of something either 1) being seen, heard, etc. or 2) being a part of a scientific explanation of something which is existing according to 1. Here "scientific" would mean mathematical/logical.

My point is that we can only comprehend being in this way, not necessarily that this is the only mode of being.

To follow on from that:

quote:

I still think that definition is a science definition of existence, and that it leaves no room for something whose existence is forever in doubt. Everything can have its existence either verified or rejected.

Strictly speaking, it's impossible to prove a general, negative ontical statement. For instance, the statement that "there is a bear in this room" cannot be invalidated by any system of logic. We can turn over all the tables and chairs and look for him, but there is still the possibility - however remote - that we've somehow missed him, or that the physical properties of the bear (he may be invisible and incorporeal) make detection impossible. Nonetheless, it's one of those realities of human logic that no negative ontical statement - however absurd it may seem - can ever be proven.

So having said that, forgive me for putting words in your mouth (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but your stance (which is difficult to classify along the old atheist / agnostic lines) seems to be that we cannot discount the existence of being (or one or more beings) merely because it lays beyond the spectrum of possible human comprehension, am I correct? So you would therefore consider it folly to dismiss the existence of, to quote what you say below, "things which have yet to have their existence rejected or verified"? In some ways you may be correct, but I ask you then - according to this criteria - on what grounds can any event or being (whithin the realm of comprehensible possibility) ever be rejected? Can I say with any confidence that there isn't a bear in my room? Must the statement "There is no bear in my room" necessarily be inaccurate merely because it may be inaccurate?

My perspective is - and this is the reason I have always considered myself an atheist rather than an agnostic - that until a claim is demonstrable (in any way) to be likely to be true, then it is prudent to reject it. While, yet again, these claims - according to the most strict terms of logic - cannot be invalidated, from a pragmatic stance it just does not make sense to "delay" judgement on issues for which there is little supporting evidence. This isn't what I'd call a particularly skeptical viewpoint, but again - from a pragmatic point of view - it is necessary to dismiss claims, at times, even though there is still some miniscule possibility that they may be true. If we do not dismiss extremely unlikely notions on this basis, then we risk opening ourselves up to increasingly spurious claims and we're left in a situation directly opposing (and every bit as unsavoury) as absolute skepticism (in the Cartesian sense) - that of absolute credulity.

Now I think I've taken your point of view and run it down a bit of a slippery-slope here, but my point is that possibility != probability and that it does make sense (from a pragmatic if not strictly logical perspective) to reject view-points for which there is little available evidence to suspend disbelief.

quote:

Maybe it's because of my delvings in probability theory, but with this worldview, I wouldn't use the term "belief" to discuss things which have yet to have their existence rejected or verified, but rather "expectation". We expect that there might not be dogs living on a planet in one of the neighbouring solar systems, but we can change that expectation into knowledge.

With strict regards to the God question then, what "expectation" would there be that evidence about God is forthcoming? Do we suspend disbelief on the basis that evidence might be forthcoming? Should we take this stance with all other claims?

Just because, throughout history, ideas have constantly been verified and rejected on the basis of new evidence, it does not make what we currently know about the world to be any less true. Perhaps someday evidence will be uncovered that lends credence to the idea of God or extra-terrestrial dogs, but that does not change the idea that - in our current paradigms - these ideas are without any substance and are, for all intents and purposes, untrue.

quote:

Sorry, but I didn't get this invoking of "is-ness". Can you elaborate on that part?

I only meant it to mean that he was trying to give God a "form", or "being". I've read it in philosophical literature, but couldn't find a reference after a quick search, so this Buddhist explanation will have to do:

http://www.cutthecrap.biz/design/isness.html

quote:

Agree. But that reasoning can be reversed. The moment sceptics fail to stress that they are speaking of the scientific world view, their demands of evidence falls flat as well.

But what perspective is there beyond the scientific one (in the most general sense - empiricism, interpreting the world through our senses etc.)?

quote:

(Trying to get the thread back on its original course)

No, don't do that!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Here, are you discussing the possiblity that there are more senses than we currently know about or that there is some other non-sensory way of comprehending being? Is there anything specific you're talking about or are you just discussing general possibilities?

There I was talking about the possibility of some non-sensory way of comprehending being.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Interesting idea, but the "possibility" of additional senses suffers from the same problems as the "possibility" of God - is there any specific evidence (empirical or otherwise) we can point to that would give us any indication that these additional senses exist? If they do exist, how can they operate beyond our detection? Is there any reason you can give that would require me to suspend my disbelief in their existence?

Here I was refering to the discovery of gasses in the human brain, which affects the interactions among neurons. A discovery which makes the interaction patterns of the brain much more complicated than previously assumed, and - this is the point - an opening to input from the outside world through interactions with the gasses rather than the neurons themselves (as is the case of eyes etc.).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nonetheless, there are certain mechanisms in the scientific method that make this "word" trustworthy. Firstly the subject matter is objective, secondly the experiments are repeatable, thirdly consensus is generally reached between a number of scientists working independently before a "theory" is accepted as "fact". In other words, we can surrender ourselves to the authority of the scientific community on the basis that it is difficult for inaccurate ideas to prosper for very long before being invalidated.

A very optimistic view of the scientific venture. I expect that you know all there is to know about Kuhn, yet you seem to ignore it here. Scientists are generally no more trustworthy than other people, and err just as much. If you listed the current theories of physics, which are regarded as the truth, you will find that practically none of them are older than a couple of hundred years. This is not because humans did not have physics until just recently, but because theories have a tendency of falling apart as time goes by and new evidence is obtained. I don't see why the theories we possess today should not suffer the same fate as time goes by. To me they are simply models that work, and (alluding to your link) are possibly far from the actual is-ness of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My point is that we can only comprehend being in this way, not necessarily that this is the only mode of being. To follow on from that: Strictly speaking, it's impossible to prove a general, negative ontical statement. For instance, the statement that "there is a bear in this room" cannot be invalidated by any system of logic. We can turn over all the tables and chairs and look for him, but there is still the possibility - however remote - that we've somehow missed him, or that the physical properties of the bear (he may be invisible and incorporeal) make detection impossible. Nonetheless, it's one of those realities of human logic that no negative ontical statement - however absurd it may seem - can ever be proven.

Generally I agree with you, but I have two comments: First, as to your last point, I think that we can prove negative statements, as long as the entity whose existence should be disproved, has logical entailments which can be denied. E.g. there is no all-good and all-powerful God who created me. I can prove this, as if that had been the case I would be entirely satisfied, which I am not.
Second, the reason why the bear example differs from the example of God's existence, is two-fold:
1: The bear's location is confined to a room with a limited number of hiding places. God's existence is not even claimed to be physical and even if it was, his location could be anywhere in the universe. In other words, we feel that we have performed a thorough search for the bear, but the search for God, no matter how it is done, cannot be said to exhaustive.
2: Nobody really cares if there is a bear in the room, but it is of definitive importance if a God exists or does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So having said that, forgive me for putting words in your mouth (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but your stance (which is difficult to classify along the old atheist / agnostic lines) seems to be that we cannot discount the existence of being (or one or more beings) merely because it lays beyond the spectrum of possible human comprehension, am I correct?

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So you would therefore consider it folly to dismiss the existence of, to quote what you say below, "things which have yet to have their existence rejected or verified"? In some ways you may be correct, but I ask you then - according to this criteria - on what grounds can any event or being (whithin the realm of comprehensible possibility) ever be rejected? Can I say with any confidence that there isn't a bear in my room? Must the statement "There is no bear in my room" necessarily be inaccurate merely because it may be inaccurate?

No, it mustn't necessarily be inaccurate, but that doesn't entitle you to claim its negation as being true. It is simply undecided. Now, you may choose to believe the bear is not there, but that is a belief (which has been my driving point in this discussion) - no matter if it stems from practical concerns or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My perspective is - and this is the reason I have always considered myself an atheist rather than an agnostic - that until a claim is demonstrable (in any way) to be likely to be true, then it is prudent to reject it.

How about : The claim "God does not exist" has not been demmonstrated to be likely - so why should you adopt it as true (as atheists do)?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade While, yet again, these claims - according to the most strict terms of logic - cannot be invalidated, from a pragmatic stance it just does not make sense to "delay" judgement on issues for which there is little supporting evidence.

I would say it makes sense to delay judgment when the ramifications of potential existence/non-existence are sufficiently severe.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade This isn't what I'd call a particularly skeptical viewpoint, but again - from a pragmatic point of view - it is necessary to dismiss claims, at times, even though there is still some miniscule possibility that they may be true. If we do not dismiss extremely unlikely notions on this basis, then we risk opening ourselves up to increasingly spurious claims and we're left in a situation directly opposing (and every bit as unsavoury) as absolute skepticism (in the Cartesian sense) - that of absolute credulity.

I would agree that we should dismiss unlikely claims - as the invicible bear - but why should the existence of a God be unlikely?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade With strict regards to the God question then, what "expectation" would there be that evidence about God is forthcoming? Do we suspend disbelief on the basis that evidence might be forthcoming? Should we take this stance with all other claims?

I wouldn't talk about expectation of things which are not states of physical matter - that being God, love, hate, possibility etc. The point I was trying to get across is that when we are discussing physical propositions we shouldn't use the word "believe" but rather "expect" or "know".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But what perspective is there beyond the scientific one (in the most general sense - empiricism, interpreting the world through our senses etc.)?

As I said, I regard the scientific world view to be a model, but do not accept it as truth. You might then ask what is truth, and I would be unable to answer that. I have an instinctive feeling of true existence and I am not prepared to equate that with description by one or more physical laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No, don't do that!

No, it's hard to do when not even the thread owner plays along:

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew really, in 99.9 % of the cases i agree with you but right now, i'm waaaaaay to wasted to say anything really

Feel free to chip in - I know you're capable

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The story is so good I'll post all of it: Joseph Smith by C. Clark Julius, MPS The Philalethes - August 1987 In 1827 Joseph Smith and his bride, Emma, arrived at her father's farm near Great Bend in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Here in this peaceful country along the banks of the Susquehanna River, Joseph would spend the next two-and-a-half years translating the Book of Mormon into English. He had been born twenty-one years earlier in Sharon, Vermont. His father, also named Joseph, and his mother, Lucy, had started their marriage auspiciously with Lucy's ample dowry of one thousand dollars. But the dowry was quickly spent and the farm was overgrown with weeds. In a last desperate attempt to recoup his losses, Joseph's father had invested everything he had left in a shipment of ginseng to China. He had heard that the Chinese would pay high prices for the root of the ginseng plant, which grew wild in Vermont. When he failed to get a penny for his ginseng, Joseph's father moved his family to a farm near Palmyra, New York, in the western part of the state. There he fared little better than in Vermont. The Smith family often went hungry during the winter months. As soon as they were able to work, the Smith children had to help support their family. Consequently, Joseph obtained little schooling. When Joseph was adolescent, an itinerant magician and diviner stopped over in Palmyra and offered his services to the local residents. The diviner claimed that he could locate not only ground water near the surface, but also treasure which had been buried by Indians many years before. Some farmers hired the diviner at three dollars per day to look for buried treasure on their lands. The diviner had several magic stones which he looked into, in order to discover the sites of the buried treasures. Young Joseph Smith took a deep interest in the diviner's skills and spent as much time as he could in the magician's company, trying to master the man's divining abilities. When no treasure was found and no more farmers would pay him, the diviner left town, but by that time Joseph had picked up some of his lore. Acquiring some magic stones of his own, Joseph was successful in using the stones to locate some lost tools. A visitor to Palmyra who heard about Joseph's clairvoyance was interested in meeting the young seer. The visitor was from the eastern part of New York State, and convinced that Spaniards had once deposited treasure on his property. Joseph agreed to accompany the visitor east, and to help him locate the treasure, provided that Joseph was paid three dollars a day, the same fee the diviner had charged. Joseph's father accompanied his nineteen-year-old son on this expedition in 1825. The site of the hoped-for treasure was the Susquehanna Valey near Damascus, New York, just north of the Pennsylvania border. While hunting for the treasure, Joseph and his father lived at a farm in Pennsylvania, where the Susquehanna dips into that state near Great Bend. A large party of diggers stowed up to help in excavating the treasure. All of them contributed to Joseph's wage, in return for a share in the expected treasure. The work progressed slowly. For the first few days the diggers worked with a will, anticipating the riches that would soon be theirs. But as they dug and found nothing, their spirits began to sink. When Joseph told them that the treasure had begun to sink lower due to an "enchantment," they suspected him of being a charlatan and felt that he had made fools of them. The search for treasure ended, and Joseph's father returned to his home in Palmyra, but Joseph stayed on in the Susquehanna Valley. He had fallen in love with Emma Hale, the daughter of Isaac Hale, in whose house Joseph and his father had boarded during the treasurehunt. Emma, who was one year older than Joseph, was a beautiful and self-contained schoolteacher who kept herself aloof from Joseph. Despite Emma's coolness, Joseph took a job as a farmhand just over the border in New York State, within walking distance of the Hale house in Pennsylvania. In his spare time he attended school to improve his skill in reading and writing, very likely so that he would seem a worthier suitor to a schoolteacher. As Joseph persisted in his courting of Emma, she gradually yielded to his ardor. But when Joseph asked her father for Emma's hand in marriage, he was brusquely refused. Mr. Isaac Hale had been one of the original diggers for treasure under Joseph's direction, and one of the first to lose confidence in the young diviner. He considered Joseph to be an arrogant, fraudulent, and lazy young man, totally unworthy to marry his daughter. After being turned down by Isaac Hale, Joseph continued to visit his daughter while Isaac was away on frequent and extended hunting trips. In the spring of 1826, some of the former treasure-hunters brought legal charges against Joseph in the court at Bainbridge, New York. Joseph was accused of "disorderly conduct" and also of being an "impostor." One of the witnesses testifying against him was his sweetheart's father, Isaac Hale. Joseph was found guilty on both charges. There is no record of the sentence imposed on him. Despite this public humiliation which was aided and abetted by her father, Emma Hale remained attracted to Joseph. In January 1827, when Joseph was twenty-one, he succeeded in persuading Emma to elope with him. After getting married in New York State, they went to live with Joseph's parents in Palmyra. In the fall of 1827, Joseph and Emma returned to her parents' home in Pennsylvania to pick up her belongings. There was an emotional meeting between Isaac Hale and his son-in-law, in which Isaac accused Joseph of having stolen his daughter. Amid tears, Joseph asked his father-in-law for forgiveness. Joseph promised to lead a more honest and responsible life, and to be a worthy husband to Emma. Isaac seemed reassured by Joseph's contrition, and offered to give the young couple a small house on his property. Joseph and Emma moved into the small house, and Isaac expected that Joseph would help with the work on his farm. Instead, Joseph kept himself occupied with some mysterious indoor activity. One day Isaac decided to investigate what was going on in the small house, and paid a visit to his son- in-law. Isaac found Joseph sitting at a table with a hat over his face, uttering long Biblical phrases. Emma sat behind a curtain, hidden from Joseph, while she wrote down the words Joseph was speaking. On the table-top in front of Joseph sat some square object concealed by a cloth. When Joseph removed his hat from his face, Isaac could see two stones in the hat, similar to the stones Joseph had used in divining the location of the "buried Spanish treasure." Alarmed, Isaac demanded an explanation of this strange activity. The explanation that Joseph and Emma gave him only alarmed Isaac more. They told Isaac that Joseph had seen a vision of an angel back in Palmyra. The angel had led Joseph to a place which Joseph called Cumorah, a hill near Palmyra. There, digging in the spot the angel indicated, Joseph had found a set of golden plates comprising a holy book, called the Book of Mormon. The book was written in symbols which Joseph called "reformed Egyptian," but with the gold plates were two stones, with which Joseph could decipher the ancient symbols on the gold plates . Joseph told Isaac that the gold plates were right in front of them on the table, in a box covered by a cloth. It was not necessary for Joseph to see the plates in order to decipher them. He could read the plates, understand them, and translate them into English, by gazing into the stones. However, in order to see into the stones, he had to shut out all extraneous light. Therefore, he put the stones into his hat and covered his face with the hat. When Isaac asked to see the golden plates, Joseph refused permission. Joseph said that, if anyone besides himself looked at the golden plates, it would mean instant death for the person. So far as Isaac could tell, no change had occurred in Joseph since his treasure-hunting days. Isaac later said, "The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stones in his hat, and his hat over his face." Isaac failed to notice that, although Joseph's occult techniques had not changed, the purpose of Joseph's life had taken a new direction. Formerly, Joseph had been looking for gold. Now, he seemed indifferent to money. As described by Joseph, the gold plates he had found at Cumorah were worth millions of dollars; yet Joseph valued only the message engraved on them. Isaac felt certain that there were no gold plates, and that Joseph was plotting some elaborate fraud. But Emma remained loyal to her husband, dutifully taking down Joseph's dictation, hour after hour, day after day. The words Joseph spoke through his hat told the story of Jewish families which had migrated to America from Israel in the seventh century before Christ, becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. According to the scriptures which Joseph was translating, Christ himself had come to America before his ascension. During his work of translation, Joseph received some financial support from a few acquaintances who believed in the importance of his task. One man mortgaged his farm to support Joseph. The man's wife, who considered Joseph's scriptures a hoax, was so incensed that she left her husband. Emma worked as Joseph's secretary until the summer of 1828, when she gave birth to a son who survived for only a few hours. Emma was so depressed by the death of her firstborn that Joseph was deeply worried about her. To give Emma a rest, he called in one of his supporters to serve as his scribe, and Emma regained her health and stability. The following year 1829, the second secretary was replaced by a third. Finally, in 1830, the work of translation was completed. Joseph was now twenty-four years old, and had spent two and a half years translating the Book of Mormon. He had dictated a total of 275,000 words. His translation complete, Joseph had one further use of the golden plates. To assure skeptics that the plates did, indeed, exist, he showed them to several trusted witnesses, who signed statements affirming that they had beheld the plates. In preparation for viewing the plates, the chosen witnesses prayed for several hours. After lengthy praying, one witness reported that he saw only an empty box. Joseph sent him out for additional prayer, after which the golden plates were fully visible to the witness. Joseph later announced that he had returned the plates to the angel who had first led him to them. The angel took them off to eternity. The manuscript of the translation then went to a printer in Palmyra. On March 25, 1830, the Book of Mormon went on sale in the bookstore in Palmyra. A week later the book was reviewed in the newspapers of Rochester, New York, under the headlines: "Blasphemy!" Leaders of established churches were, in general, shocked by the emendations of the Bible that were contained in the Book or Mormon. But many people/living in western New York State were fascinated by the Mormon narratives, which tied together their religious and patriotic sentiments. Utilizing the popular theory that the Indians were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, the Book of Mormon incorporated the history of the western hemisphere within Biblical history. The entire book was written in the style of the King James Version of the Bible and abounded with phrases like, "And it came to pass..." Judeo-Christian and American traditions were welded in the Book of Mormon, in which America's "fruited plain" was an extension of the Holy Land. Before and during Joseph's time, western New York State had seethed with religious ferment. Fantastic religious sects had arisen and briefly flowered there. Camp meetings, with their unbridled exhibitions, had been frequent. Seasoned evangelists tended to avoid western New York State because they considered it "burnt over territory." Its inhabitants had participated in so many revivals that they had become jaded with religious ecstasy. They were weary of agonizing guilt and had lost faith in the healing power of Christ's sacrifice. Western New York was ripe for a new religious message, and for many that message was contained in the Book of Mormon. Several days after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph organized his first congregation of the Mormon church. Among the converts who were baptized by total immersion in Lake Seneca were his parents and brothers. Joseph and Emma traveled back to her parents' neighborhood in the Susquehanna Valley, where they made some converts. But they did not convert any of his former associates in treasurehunting. Joseph's father-in-law, Isaac Hale, thought that Joseph was the same charlatan as before, and was merely practicing a new confidence game. With the encouragement of the local Presbyterian minister, Joseph was once more put on trial on the charge of "disorderly conduct." After the trial, Joseph and Emma left the Susquehanna Valley. Emma would never see her parents again. Despite setbacks, the church grew and spread. Mormonism had distinct advantages over conventional churches; it had its own unique scriptures and its own living prophet, who had brought its sacred writings down from Cumorah Mount, as Moses had brought the ten commandments down from Sinai. Joseph, whose powers as a writer had increased as he translated the Book of Mormon, now grew as an orator. Unlike the evangelists with whom he was competing for souls, he did not terrify his audiences with vivid pictures of hellfire; in fact, Joseph's sermons were punctuated with humor. His audiences laughed more than they quaked. He held out for his converts not the dangers of hell but the likely prospect of eternal bliss. Heaven was not hard to attain. Ordinary sinners like blasphemers and adulterers would not go to hell. It was true that frequent sinners would not go to the luxurious and carefree abode of the saintly, but the heaven of sinners would be comfortable enough. Joseph taught that every person contained some divinity which could be augmented indefinitely, transforming the human into a god. Each person who wanted such exalted status could one day become master or mistress of one of the many stars in the firmament. There were plenty of stars in God's creation to go around. For many people, Joseph was a welcome relief from the itinerant fire-and-brimstone evangelists. By the early fall of 1830 there was only one person whom Joseph wanted to convert who had still not joined his church. That holdout was his wife, Emma. Why Emma refused to join Joseph's church for six months we do not know, just as we do not know whether she believed in the existence of the golden tablets. It was, of course, embarrassing for Joseph to be proselytizing for his new church while he was unable to win the soul of his own wife. Under considerable pressure from Joseph, the woman who had recorded the first words of the Book of Mormon finally became a Mormon herself. The membership of the Mormon church was significantly increased in 1831, when a preacher in another denomination in Kirtland, Ohio, converted and took his entire congregation with him into the Mormons. The church in Kirtland grew so rapidly that it became the largest center of Mormons in the country. Joseph and his elders moved the headquarters of the new national church to Kirtland, from where Joseph exerted a tight control over his rapidly expanding movement. Joseph announced new policies for the church as revelations which he had received direct from God. Mormons were hard workers and their communities prospered. The economy in Kirtland was at first communistic, like that of the early Christians. When communism proved itself impractical the Mormons returned to free enterprise, with members paying one-tenth of their incomes to the church as tithes. Eventually a temple was built in Kirtland, an architectural gem which was the grandest building in the west. The Mormons' prosperity was consistent with Joseph's theology: the Kingdom of God, he taught, was to prevail not only in heaven but on earth, too. Despite their affluence, the Mormons were continually suffering abuse from their non-Mormon neighbors, whom the Mormons called "gentiles." The Mormon beliefs struck many gentiles as being strange, distant from the mainstream of American life. The Mormons' serene assurance of the correctness of their beliefs impressed the gentiles as being smug. Joseph once said, "Truth is Mormonism. God is the author of it." A whispering campaign against the Mormons was concerned largely with what gentiles considered the bizarre sexual practices of the Mormons. Joseph began to plan for an earthly paradise for Mormons that would be far removed from people of other faiths. In 1832 Joseph was tarred and feathered by a gentile mob near Kirtland. The fury of the mob was ignited by rumors that Joseph had made sexual advances to a seventeen-year-old girl. The attack on his person intensified Joseph's determination to establish a Mormon utopia far away from the gentiles. The Mormon's new home, with its ideal society, would be called Zion. At first Joseph placed his hope for Zion in Missouri. Although Joseph himself remained in Ohio during the middle 1830's, other Mormons settled in Independence, Missouri, then a frontier town. As soon as the Mormons were settled and had begun to thrive in Independence, however, gentiles began to harass them and drove them out of town. A new Mormon settlement outside of Independence was also harried, forcing a flight to a completely new settlement in Missouri, which the Mormons named Far West. Joseph, still maintaining his headquarters in Kirtland, Ohio, began referring to Far West as Zion. When Far West was attacked by the gentiles, Joseph decided that the Mormons had taken enough punishment. He organised a company of armed Mormons in Ohio and marched at their head to defend their beleagured brethren in Missouri. By the time the small Mormon fighting force arrived in Missouri, however, the gentiles had called out the Missouri state militia and were waiting to do battle. Joseph was outnumbered ten-to-one and saw at once that a shoot-out with the Missourians would be suicidal for him and his men. He capitulated. Despite Joseph's surrender, he was charged with treason for appearing in Missouri in command of an armed force, and was also charged with plotting the murder of a Missouri gentile killed in a skirmish with Mormons. While Joseph was in jail awaiting trial, gentiles attacked Far West and drove the Mormons east toward the Mississippi River. Fifteen thousand Mormons crossed the Mississippi into Illinois in 1839. There they were most unexpectedly welcomed by politicians of both the Whig and Democratic persuasions, who hoped the Mormons would vote their way in the next elections. Joseph got out of his Missouri jail by bribing the sheriff with a jug of whiskey and eight hundred dollars, then joined the last straggling Mormon refugees from Missouri in their retreat to Illinois. He was thirty-three years old. In Illinois, Joseph became mayor of a new Mormon town called Nauvoo. Thanks to the eagerness of Illinois politicians to win the Mormon vote, he was commissioned as a lieutenant general in command of the Nauvoo militia. He delighted in wearing his general's uniform and reviewing his troops . In 1844, at age thirty-eight, he announced his candidacy for the office of the President of the United States. Outwardly, Joseph's troubles seemed to be over, but appearances were deceiving. Despite his titles, gaudy uniforms, and vaulting political ambitions, Joseph was standing on a very shaky foundation. His position was weakest within his own church. All his life, Joseph had a tendency to quarrel with his closest friends, who then became his bitter enemies. As a young treasure-hunter, he had made lifelong foes of the men who had helped him dig for treasure. After translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph had a series of close friends and colleagues who worked with him in building the Mormon church. After a limited time of cooperation, however, Joseph quarreled with each friend. The former friend either left the church or was excommunicated from it by Joseph. Outside the church, these former friends circulated malicious rumors about Joseph among the gentiles. Along with breaks in his relationships with ecclesiastical colleagues, a rift grew between Joseph and his wife, Emma. Although Emma continued to live with Joseph and bear him children, a problem arose between them in the 1830's which was never resolved. That problem was Joseph's pursuit of other women. Ever since Joseph had founded the Mormon church, his status as a prophet had brought him the adoration of his followers, including many attractive women. Seducing Mormon women was easy for him, and was apparently irresistible to him. As much as she was able, Emma tried to ignore Joseph's infidelities and pretended they had not happened. But once when she caught Joseph embracing a woman whom Emma considered her good friend, Emma lost control of herself and attacked the woman with a broomstick. There is evidence that Joseph started to think about making plural marriage a moral practice within his church as early as 1831, one year after the church was founded. He knew, however, how shocking such a practice would be not only to many Mormons, but to the gentiles also. He intended to postpone the announcement of the new practice until people were more ready to accept it. Meanwhile, he let a few trusted colleagues know that plural marriage had been sanctioned by God in a special revelation to Joseph. God, said Joseph, was no more opposed to polygamy in 1831 than He had been in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who all had large harems. Meanwhile, although Joseph had not announced God's sanction of plural marriage to the entire church, Joseph himself was practising it. He proposed what he called "celestial" marriage to a number of women, some of whom were already legally married to other men. Joseph considered celestial marriages to be on a higher plane than earthly marriages, lasting forever, and taking precedence over mundane marriages. Only polygamy - the custom of one man taking multiple wives was sanctioned. Women were not allowed to have more than one husband. Joseph taught that a woman's possibility of entering heaven depended largely on the worthiness of her husband, rather than on her own worthiness. When Joseph mentioned his revelation about plural marriages to Emma, she was beside herself with rage. She had helped him translate the Book of Mormon and had never asked to see his gold plates. She had borne him children. She had scraped tar and feathers from his naked and bruised body. But she was not going to bless her husband's practice of polygamy. He might have God's permission to sleep with other women, but he would never get her permission. She begged him to renounce the new doctrine. More than one former colleague with whom Joseph fell out was the husband, brother, or father of a woman to whom Joseph had proposed celestial marriage. In 1844 a major schism occurred among the Mormons of Nauvoo which resulted directly from Joseph's proposals of marriage to the wives of several leaders of the church. The husbands who felt wronged by their prophet challenged Joseph's leadership of the church, bought a printing press, and issued a dissident Mormon newspaper with editorials attacking Joseph's policies. Joseph ordered his followers to destroy the printing press of his opponents. After the press was wrecked, the governor of Illinois charged Joseph with violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and ordered his arrest. The state militia marched to Nauvoo and took Joseph into custody. The governor did not send the militia because, he expected mass resistance by the Mormons to Joseph's own protection. The governor feared that, if peace officers tried to conduct Joseph to jail, gentile mobs would overwhelm the lawmen in order to lynch Joseph. The militia conducted Joseph to the jail in Carthage, Illinois, and locked him up with other loyal Mormon leaders in a cell on the second floor. The militia was stationed outside the jail to guard it. On the second day of Joseph's imprisonment, other militiamen who had been dismissed by the governor, marched into Carthage. Their faces were painted to conceal their identities. They were obviously about to commit some mayhem. When the disguised militiamen approached the jail, the guards on duty did nothing to impede their progress. As they mounted the steps of the jail, the vigilantes fired several shots. Joseph, who had a six-shooter, opened fire on the first vigilantes to reach the second floor. He wounded several of the attackers: then his pistol was emptied. As the vigilantes came on unopposed, Joseph ran for a window. As he straddled the window sill he was shot from behind by vigilantes inside the jail. At the same time, he was shot by their comrades on the ground below. Calling out, "Oh, my God!" Joseph fell to the ground. He was still alive when he hit the earth. Vigilantes standing over him put several more shots into him, ending his life at age thirty-eight. When his body was brought home to Nauvoo, Emma flung herself across it and moaned, "Oh Joseph, Joseph, they have killed you at last." http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml South Park actually did a show on the whole mormon religion. It's absolutely hilarious.

WoW man.. Dont be hating ... It's funny. You could find numerous stories about Joseph Smith, and they all differ.. they are either made up or what-not.

quote:

Joseph Smith Jr. was born in 1805 in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith. He had 10 brothers and sisters. His parents taught him to pray, read the Bible, and to have faith in God. At age 14, Joseph saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in his First Vision. At age 17, Joseph began to receive heavenly messengers who prepared him for his role in the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. He was a prophet, just like those in biblical times.

http://www.mormon.org/search/1,9643...ch=joseph+smith Is more of an official link.. the one story you posted contradicts to so many other's I've read and heard.. but I dont know, I, as a Mormon im telling what my belief is, and to extend other's point of you, I invite you to click on that link and read the actually official version.. and Oh.. is just funny how people now-adays still Associate mormons with Poligamy.. is totally banned from the church and un-accepted. .. Old thread I found and I just happened to miss this post.. is just interesting, funny and scary how mormons are viewed sometimes.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.