Elderbednarophobia

[SoonerCoug]

DDD makes a great point here. I am going to help people out who would like to turn sooner on his head: employ the same tactic. You should ask Sooner to tell us what "science" has to say about what happens to our consciousness after death. Or you should ask him to use "science" to define the meaning and purpose of human life. That'll totally stump him, like when Pres. Packer asked the angry atheist to describe the taste of salt, that is the moment you will know that you have "broken" Sooners pride.

Wally, I love you, but this doesn't turn me on my head.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for God that there is for minotaurs. I am agnostic with regard to both.

Science is the process of challenging your own beliefs until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Religious belief does not survive this sort of scrutiny.

Alma 32 encourages people to believe their doubts until you have feelings that confirm that things you previously doubted are true. Basically what Alma 32 encourages people to do is convince themselves that something is true. This is the exact opposite of the scientific approach, which is to attempt to disprove using appropriate techniques.

Religion is the anti-science. Alma 32 logic is hopeless with regard to anything that can be objectively measured.

This is not to say that religion is unimportant or plays no good role in society. I'm just explaining the deficit our society has as far as grasping what science really is.

[TripletDaddy]

Wally, I love you, but this doesn't turn me on my head.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for God that there is for minotaurs. I am agnostic with regard to both.

Science is the process of challenging your own beliefs until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Religious belief does not survive this sort of scrutiny.

Alma 32 encourages people to believe their doubts until you have feelings that confirm that things you previously doubted are true. Basically what Alma 32 encourages people to do is convince themselves that something is true. This is the exact opposite of the scientific approach, which is to attempt to disprove using appropriate techniques.

Religion is the anti-science. Alma 32 logic is hopeless with regard to anything that can be objectively measured.

This is not to say that religion is unimportant or plays no good role in society. I'm just explaining the deficit our society has as far as grasping what science really is.

lol. Sooner using the scriptures to explain science.

[SeattleUte]

DDD makes a great point here. I am going to help people out who would like to turn sooner on his head: employ the same tactic. You should ask Sooner to tell us what "science" has to say about what happens to our consciousness after death. Or you should ask him to use "science" to define the meaning and purpose of human life. That'll totally stump him, like when Pres. Packer asked the angry atheist to describe the taste of salt, that is the moment you will know that you have "broken" Sooners pride.

I think he asked Mick Jagger that question. Is MJ an atheist?

[TripletDaddy]

I think he asked Mick Jagger that question. Is MJ an atheist?

I thought it was Gene R Cook who was talking about sex with Mick Jagger. I mean talking to Mick Jagger about sex. whoops!

[creekster]

I think he asked Mick Jagger that question. Is MJ an atheist?

What does Michael Jordan have to do with this?

[Applejack]

DDD makes a great point here. I am going to help people out who would like to turn sooner on his head: employ the same tactic. You should ask Sooner to tell us what "science" has to say about what happens to our consciousness after death. Or you should ask him to use "science" to define the meaning and purpose of human life. That'll totally stump him, like when Pres. Packer asked the angry atheist to describe the taste of salt, that is the moment you will know that you have "broken" Sooners pride.

Sorry, Wally, none of those questions will stump Sooner. The real question that people should be asking Sooner is "do you still pay 5% tithing?"

[byu71]

Science is the process of challenging your own beliefs until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Religious belief does not survive this sort of scrutiny.

I believe in God. I don't see any benefit in testing my belief until I prove it satisfactorly to someone like yourself. I don't really care if you don't believe.

I believe in those who follow the idea of, if you think you can, you can. Or, all things are possible to him that believeth.

I think belief and faith have commonality.

Scientists have accomplished many great things and certainly made it better for humans to live on this planet. So have people of faith.

You and I both can also find those in both groups who suck.

[SoonerCoug]

I believe in those who follow the idea of, if you think you can, you can. Or, all things are possible to him that believeth.
.

Two sincere questions:

1) How is religion progressively increasing or amplifying our understanding of the universe in any way? If modern revelation were active, I could see how this might be applicable within Mormonism although it seems that the major effects of revelation in the last 40 years have been agreeing that it's ok for black men to have the priesthood and construction of mini-temples. And letting women watch priesthood session online.

2) Do you really believe this statement: "All things are possible to him that believeth" ? If so, why? Please give specific examples. Also, I want to know who originally said this because I personally think it is a completely untrue thing to say.

[Blueintheface]

This is not to say that religion is unimportant or plays no good role in society.

You don't believe this at all and it's patronizing and moranic. You're not curious as to religion and it's usefulness in society, you're attempting to convince others that science is the only way. Quit talking down to people and start copying and pasting some exmo bullshit.

Your campaign here is futile, "dude".

[wally]

Two sincere questions:

1) How is religion progressively increasing or amplifying our understanding of the universe in any way? If modern revelation were active, I could see how this might be applicable within Mormonism although it seems that the major effects of revelation in the last 40 years have been agreeing that it's ok for black men to have the priesthood and construction of mini-temples. And letting women watch priesthood session online.

2) Do you really believe this statement: "All things are possible to him that believeth" ? If so, why? Please give specific examples. Also, I want to know who originally said this because I personally think it is a completely untrue thing to say.

I will have a go at these for you byu71:

Answer 1: It really doesn't matter if anything increases any of our ability to understand the universe any more, unless of course, human kind is able to avoid its extinction event. If humans go extinct like the dinosaurs, and like all species are essentially destined to, then our knowledge will perish with us and be rendered useless. Especially if the sun supernovas and burns up all hard copies. Maybe we could send some external hard drives of all of our scientific journals into deep space in a time capsule? Maybe the records would assist some other alien race that ends up finding them, unless of course the capsule drifts into another star going supernova before it is found.

Answer 2: Depends if the question is asking metaphorically or not. Like, for instance, if you believe you can forgive someone then it is possible for you to do so. On a side note, I have been teaching my children that they simply cannot grow up to be "anything", as my youngest has been insisting that science will somehow enable him to become "half-dragon" by the time he is in his 20s. (true story) Instead, I have been teaching them that they will need to accept their roles in an American society that values conformity to social norms and that they are no more special than anybody else. Pretty much a grain of sand on the beach. I think that this is inspiring them to be better people.

[creekster]

I think that this is inspiring them to be better people.

Either that or inspiring them to be like your avatar.

[SoonerCoug]

I will have a go at these for you byu71:

Answer 1: It really doesn't matter if anything increases any of our ability to understand the universe any more, unless of course, human kind is able to avoid its extinction event. If humans go extinct like the dinosaurs, and like all species are essentially destined to, then our knowledge will perish with us and be rendered useless. Especially if the sun supernovas and burns up all hard copies. Maybe we could send some external hard drives of all of our scientific journals into deep space in a time capsule? Maybe the records would assist some other alien race that ends up finding them, unless of course the capsule drifts into another star going supernova before it is found.

Answer 2: Depends if the question is asking metaphorically or not. Like, for instance, if you believe you can forgive someone then it is possible for you to do so. On a side note, I have been teaching my children that they simply cannot grow up to be "anything", as my youngest has been insisting that science will somehow enable him to become "half-dragon" by the time he is in his 20s. (true story) Instead, I have been teaching them that they will need to accept their roles in an American society that values conformity to social norms and that they are no more special than anybody else. Pretty much a grain of sand on the beach. I think that this is inspiring them to be better people.

Short version:

1) It doesn't matter if religion progressively increases our understanding of the world because we will go extinct someday.

2) Obviously you have to be somewhat realistic since humans can't become dragons no matter how much they want to.


Next question: Does it really satisfy that religion isn't giving the world progressively greater knowledge? You really think this doesn't matter? I would argue that if religion is a legitimate source of truth that it should be continually revealing lots of things. Joseph Smith was on the right track but was ahead of his time. He might have been a great scientist if he could keep from falsifying data.

[wally]

Short version:

1) It doesn't matter if religion progressively increases our understanding of the world because we will go extinct someday.

2) Obviously you have to be somewhat realistic since humans can't become dragons no matter how much they want to.


Next question: Does it really satisfy that religion isn't giving the world progressively greater knowledge? You really think this doesn't matter? I would argue that if religion is a legitimate source of truth that it should be continually revealing lots of things. Joseph Smith was on the right track but was ahead of his time. He might have been a great scientist if he could keep from falsifying data.

I will answer you that if you first answer me this: If it were scientifically possible to mutate a living person into a half-dragon (let's say not technically a fictitious dragon of course, as there is no "dragon DNA" to draw from, rather using DNA from say a Komodo) would you think that would be a cool experiment? Answer carefully, because this will color my response to your question.