BOOK OF MORMON

[benvolio3]

Yay!!! I got something right!!! 

And I totally agree with what you guys are saying... I may give more insight later when I have more time and less head fuzz 

[Shaggy]

Lol benvolio3.

I think there are like 4-5 different discussions on the forum that have all been overlapping and a lot of this stuff has already been discussed.…

[mtlhddoc2]

Renoard: Dawkins is not an athiest, he is an anti-theist. He calls himself and athiest, but then again, Obama's pastor whats-his-name calls himself a Christian while calling for violence against white people. Having read the bible, I can say, he is no more Christian than I am, although, I act alot more Christian than he does. It is not "passive" or "agressive" athiesm. Atheism itself is passive. Anyone who acts like Dawkins is not an athiest. He is religious in his hatred of religion. Athiests, by and large, are indifferent to other peoples religious beliefs. That is not hatred. we are not under some misguided order to convert masses to our "religion" as many of your brethen, Christian or not, seem to think. (There is a difference between offering, and bludgeoning...  I dont mind the offering, it is... thoughtful, actually).

But, one point I would liek to make here, in response to Renoard: I ahve studied various religions, and by and large, they are all pretty much the same. Oh, sure there are some differences, and many people who follow those religions would call them major, but I do not. i can look at them all objectively. And all teh major religions have more in common than they do otherwise. i am not going to go into a detailed analysis (although I could) but lets suffice to say that Islam and Christianity and Hindi, and all the various sects and septs, are nearly identical at the core.

[Shaggy]

Islam and Christianity and Hindi, and all the various sects and septs, are nearly identical at the core.

I don't know if I sould say that, mtlh.

[Renoard]

Shags always get to the heart of the matter.  We old farts tend to make things more convoluted.

[The Jade Knight]

Wolfstar:  Atheists believe in something: they believe that God does not exist.

An atheist that doesn't believe in anything isn't an atheist.  He's agnostic.

Mtlh:  Anyone who believes there is no God is an atheist.  Anyone who believes there is absolutely nothing spiritual or metaphysical is a naturalist or materialist (and also an atheist).

we are not under some misguided order to convert masses to our "religion" as many of your brethren Christian or not, seem to think.

I'm afraid this hasn't been my experience at all.  Almost all of the atheists I know (and I know and am friends with quite a number) are quite convinced of the moral superiority of their position and expect all other reasonable and intelligent individuals to believe likewise.  Agnostics are a totally different story, but agnostics are, as I have just said, not atheist.  And I certainly think there are at least as many evangelical atheists (as a proportion of the total atheist population) as there are evangelical Christians.

But, one point I would liek to make here, in response to Renoard: I ahve studied various religions, and by and large, they are all pretty much the same.

This is a gross oversimplification, IMO.  Simply having an etic perspective does not make you an expert.  Your statement here is essentially tantamount to saying "All languages on the earth are, by and large, pretty much the same."  Sure, yes, most religions share the same basic core values (as did all human societies, and do many atheists and agnostics), just as almost all languages involve at least 3-4 voiced vowels or more, and some consonants, articulated at the mouth.  But beyond that...  your oversimplification is just as likely to have arisen from an emic perspective as an atheist (and your integrated "us vs. them" mentality) than it does from any supposed superior etic view.

Think about it:  You are saying (in essence) that "Our beliefs are different or special, but everyone else's are the same old thing."  Just how is this objective?

And finally, why in the world would you suggest that clans/tribes/families/septs would be the same as religions, in any regard?  The only similarity I can see (at all) is that they are all social groups.  But so are sports teams, political organizations, and just about any situation where people regularly gather together.

[mtlhddoc2]

Jade: an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but does not care, basically. All religions, as i have said, are the same at their core. That may be an "oversimplification" but what is wrong with that? All major religions have a desire and a mandate to spread their religion far and wide and, with Mormonism being the lone exception among the worlds major religious sects, are the only ones who have not gone to war to force others to comply with their belief. Also, I never mentioned anything about clans or families or tribes. I said sects/septs: which are various diversions of the main religion. Christianity is the religion, Catholicism is a sept, Mormonism would be a sect. then you have Islam, with 2 or three main septs such as Shiite and Sunni, plus dozens, hundreds, thousands of sects.

You are right though Jade: Atheism IS a belief. And with any belief, you feel you position is the superior one. If you are a Catholic, you feel that every other version of religion is incorrect. The Seventh's even go as far to say that their version is not only the correct one, but all others are doomed, regardless of whether they are Christian or not. To me, belief in a higher power is completely illogical and puzzling. Oh, I understand the fundementals of belief, and the psychological aspect and all that, but can never understand how someone could REALLY beleive. Maybe I am a Vulcan..  who knows? There are those who would push others to believe as they do among the athiest circuit (or push to disbelieve?) but they are not in the majority. Many of us fall under libertarian value systems: Live and let live. But as with any group of people, organized or not, there will be some who will use their belief/politics/power or whatnot to supress others or make fun of others or treat others in a hateful or violent manner. But that has more to do with that persons core values and makeup than it does with whatever belief, religious or political or whatever, that they follow.

the biggest difference between the "religion" of atheism from other religions is two-fold: the majority of us do not feel the need to "spread the word" or "encourage" others to feel the same way. and we are not organized.

One last fact:
Roughly 18% of the citizens of the United State of America identify themselves as atheist. If we ever did organize (which we never really could) we would be a significant power in this country, since atheism is now the 2nd largest "religion" in the country.

Fun fact:
7% of people in the United Kingdom identify themselves as Jedi.

[Renoard]

Well you're facts are certainly not correct. There are plenty of Christian sects that have never engaged in a war to impose their beliefs(e.g. Anabaptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, Irvingites, Copts).  You'd have a hard time proving Jains have engaged in Holy War either.  If your premise is that all Christian sects are one religion but Mormons are a different one then you run into the fact that Mormons self identify as Christian.  It's a non-stater.  The whole premise was invented to create a paper tiger attack against people of faith.

As for Agnostics, agnostic mean "not knowledgeable" and was adopted to identify the fact that people who self identify this way, don't believe or disbelieve in a higher power but are undecided.  Typically agnostics are suspicious of those who are sure on the subject, including atheists.

This is one reason why Atheisim is a belief system as much as any religion or faith.  The surety.  That is faith or belief in the unprovable.  But those who follow the Richard Dawkins trend in atheism are evangelistic about it. They are not content to allow believers to believe.  Oppression of this sort is exactly why the first amendment was written, to defend people with a certain faith from being abused by those of a differing view, even atheists, who would use legislation or force to oppress those of a given faith.

[The Jade Knight]

Jade: an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but does not care, basically

No, an Agnostic is someone that does not know whether or not there is a higher power.  Someone who believes in a higher power, but is not attatched to any particuler creed, is a Theist.

That may be an "oversimplification" but what is wrong with that?

The problem with it is that it's so grossly oversimplified as to be misleading and generally unhelpful in discussion, particularly of the sort we're having now.

Also, I never mentioned anything about clans or families or tribes. I said sects/septs: which are various diversions of the main religion.

Please go educate yourself on what a "sept" is.  Wikipedia's a great resource.  (While you're there, you may wish to check out the closely-related "Sippe" article—I wrote much of that one.)

Oh, I understand the fundementals of belief, and the psychological aspect and all that, but can never understand how someone could REALLY beleive.

Well, I can't speak for others, but in my case, two simple words were enough:  "Divine intervention".

But as with any group of people, organized or not, there will be some who will use their belief/politics/power or whatnot to supress others or make fun of others or treat others in a hateful or violent manner. But that has more to do with that persons core values and makeup than it does with whatever belief, religious or political or whatever, that they follow.

This I completely agree with, with one caveat:  Beliefs, religious, political, or philosophical (we can sum these up as "relosophical") affect a person's core values and makeup.

the biggest difference between the "religion" of atheism from other religions is two-fold: the majority of us do not feel the need to "spread the word" or "encourage" others to feel the same way. and we are not organized.

Once again, I disagree.  Most of the atheists I know (far more than the Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims I know, especially, and even more than the Christians I know) do indeed feel the need to "spread the word".  However, I do agree that atheists are not "organized".  On the other hand, there are many religious adherents that are also unorganized.

Roughly 18% of the citizens of the United State of America identify themselves as atheist.

I'm very curious where you got this figure, as an ARIS study in 2001 showed that 0.4% of Americans self-identified as Atheist, and a Pew Research Council (slightly less reliable) study in 2002 found that 2% of Americans were Atheist.  I'd sure be interested in seeing the details for any study which claims that Atheism has mushromed over 800% in the last 6 years.

Oh, and you've got your Jedi facts wrong.  In one British census, a little under 0.8% of Britain claimed "Jedi" as their religion, mostly by way of a wide-spread, organized practical joke (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon for lots more info).  And remember that this was in the UK, where the "Official Monster Raving Loony Party" has been elected to political office…

Oppression of this sort is exactly why the first amendment was written, to defend people with a certain faith from being abused by those of a differing view, even atheists, who would use legislation or force to oppress those of a given faith.

Actually, as best I can tell, the first amendment was written for the purpose of keeping government from corrupting religion.  Religious bigotry was still exceedingly widespread back in the day...

[mtlhddoc2]

my apologies, I was slightly off in the number: it is 15% as reported by Lauren Green, Religious Correspondent from FoxNews, concerning a Trinity College Poll

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/11/green_trinity_religion/

The Jedi thing may have been .7, but I just threw that in there for levity. You are right though, a hefty percentage of people in the UK are 100% bonkers.

My derivative on Sept doesnt match yours, doesnt matter, you get my point, aside from terminology.

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic    (āg-nŏs'tĭk)   
n.   

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.   
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

I should have prefaced my agnostic remark this way (was intended, even if not implied): "an agnostic is someone who believes there could be a higher power but does not care, basically."

Renoard: I said "major" sect, which would leave out the Quakers etc. Pentacostal is an offshoot of Protestantism, as is Baptist etc. They would mostly fall under the same "sect" heading, I would believe since they are loosely bound to each other for the most part, just as Lutheran, while a product of the Martin Luther protestant movement is more closely aligned with Catholicism and would fall under that heading. Mormonism, is a unique branch all it's own, and while derived from Christianity, it would not be, what most consider, true Christianity, since they annointed a new prophet in Joseph Smith (not sure if that is exactly correct, I am not as up on the Mormon faith as I am most of the others). I would even offer that, while it is Christian in name (for the belief in Jesus as Savior) that is where the similarities of faith end (as opposed to core system, which all religions share, as I explained above). I consider Mormonism a religion all it's own, rather than a "branch" like Catholicism, Protestanism, Methodism etc would be.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic    (āg-nŏs'tĭk)   
n.   

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.   
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

I should have prefaced my agnostic remark this way (was intended, even if not implied): "an agnostic is someone who believes there could be a higher power but does not care, basically."

That doesn't match, even in paraphrase, the dictionary definition you just quoted.

[The Jade Knight]

Mtlhddoc2:  You need to pay attention to method.  What you are referring to is an informal college poll, which is likely to be heavily biased in addition to being unreliable.  Additionally, it simply is a number of people who said they had "no religion".  This number includes atheists, agnostics, theists, and other individuals which have no religion but believe in God/spirits/other metaphysical things.  The vast majority of these are not atheists.  The ARIS study is much, much more reliable in determining % of atheists for a number of reasons, including random sampling, self-identification specifically as "atheist", and a HUGE sample base.

I seriously doubt that the US is more than 3% atheist, and I doubt it's more than 2% atheist.

Mtlhddoc2:  Try looking up "sept" at Wiktionary, Mirriam-Webster, or Wikipedia.  Your "derivative" (I think you meant definition?) is not standard usage, and does not reflect the established meaning of the word sept.  Once again, I recommend you educate yourself on the matter.

Please understand that the third definition you quote for "Agnostic" is a metaphorical one, being used through extension.  That definition is virtually never used when discussing religion.  Agnostics may or may not care whether or not a higher power is knowable (as agnosticism does not determine this); the one unifying thing for all agnostics is that they do not know whether or not there is a higher power.  (The first two definitions given from the dictionary.com definition you provide are that of Strong Agnostic and Weak Agnostic, respectively).

FYI:  In the future I'd use m-w.com or wiktionary.org to look up words.  They're both better (in their own ways) than dictionary.com.  Not that any of them are academic sources (the OED is, but it's not free to the public).

Another FYI:  Mormonism is  a "Restorationist" Christian sect.  As Father Jordan Vajda (a Catholic at the time) illustrated quite clearly in his Master's thesis ("'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization"), Mormonism is quite close to ancient Christianity, making any claims that it is somehow historically "unChristian" spurious.

Edit:  Now that's just funny, Ookla.  Upon further examination, you'll notice that dictionary lists 6 different entries for agnostic (presumably overlapping).  He ignored the first one (which made no mention of the extended, metaphorical use of the term) and went straight for the second.  Presumably, you only noticed the first.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I only see 5 definitions he quoted and I'm not sure how "doubtful or noncommittal" could be matched to his paraphrase. Being noncommittal is not the same as not caring. Also, "skeptical about the existence of God" means "doubts God exists" but he spun it into a positive.

Dictionary.com is a fine resource if you ignore the first listing and only look at the American Heritage 4th edition listing. AHD4 is a good, scholarly reference that I prefer over m-w for some words, like goodbye. It also includes the dictionary of Indo-European roots, which is very useful for linguists.

[Eleaneth]

I'm afraid this hasn't been my experience at all.  Almost all of the atheists I know (and I know and am friends with quite a number) are quite convinced of the moral superiority of their position and expect all other reasonable and intelligent individuals to believe likewise.  Agnostics are a totally different story, but agnostics are, as I have just said, not atheist.  And I certainly think there are at least as many evangelical atheists (as a proportion of the total atheist population) as there are evangelical Christians.

One thing that bothers me whenever it's in any belief system is intolerance. Many religions teach that only members of their particular religion will be saved and return to God. I'm Mormon, and my religion does teach that, but it also teaches that everyone will have abundant opportunity to hear the full gospel and accept it, whether in this life or the next. It also teaches that good people who reject the gospel will have a lesser degree of salvation. It's kind of complicated, but it ends up logically leading to tolerance. (Of course, there are intolerant Mormons just like there are intolerant people in every religion. But that's the conclusion I've come to.)

One reason some athiests are intolerant is that they come to their conclusion through logic. Therefore, if anyone comes to a different conclusion, they assume they are either stupid or have an ulterior motive. One reason some religious people are intolerant is that they assume that any good person will have enough spirituality to know the truth.

I like the whole concept of giving others the benefit of a doubt. It makes more sense than assuming that we know everything.

[mtlhddoc2]

[One reason some athiests are intolerant is that they come to their conclusion through logic. Therefore, if anyone comes to a different conclusion, they assume they are either stupid or have an ulterior motive.

Actually, you find it is the opposite. Those that came to their non-belief through logic are more likely to be passive towards your choice of religion instead of opposed. Such as myself. I came to a LOGICAL conclusion that there is no higher power. To me it is just science. But in the same token as religion, I profess zero understanding of many forms of art which others like, especially the surrealist and the like. simply because, in my eye, it is devoid of logic. Some people are religious, some people like surrealism. Some are neither. to each their own.