I Need To Vent (Prop 8)

[Rev Dark]

LordPanther Wrote

So I have a question for you. If you were in the time when everyone was saying the world was flat, would you agree with them or would you take a chance on
that oddball Christopher Columbus who says its round?

Were you home schooled?



No seriously. I have to ask. As the above question is pretty concerning, as it demonstrates
a very shaky grasp of the scientific method. Scientific consensus stands up until a better theory comes along.
The ancient Greeks has a pretty good idea the world was round, but Columbus generally is credited with demonstrating it - erroneously - the vikings got there
several centuries earlier... Part of the reason it took so sodding long was the insistence that the bible was perfect and as such its
claims of a flat earth were true.



Einstein was pretty sure about special relativity, but needed a particular celestial event in order to demonstrate his theory.

When Gallileo was talking about the earth revolving around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth who would you
believe?

As with above, you go with the evidence. The explanation that best fits the evidence. What
is more, anyone should be able to perform the experiments and get the same result. Again, part of the scientific method, which you seem,
pretty ignorant about.

When Darwin was killed by the Catholics because they thought the theory of evolution disproved the theory of creationism, who would you side with? (I admit
Darwin probably isn't the best example considering you already said you don't believe in God but he was one of those world changing figures)

Darwin was not killed by Catholics. He was not killed at all. Darwin is a great example,
because up the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, god was the best theory (a decidedly shitty theory to be sure) but the best theory.
Darwin demonstrated that no creator god was required to provide diversity of life.

So why can't I believe another revolutionary figure, Joseph Smith Jr. has come forward to change the world just as drasticly?

Well if we compare Darwin's work in let's say "The Origin of The Species" We see the basis for our understanding of
modern biology, the rudiments of a theory that provides us the answer to our origins, and an elegant explanation to the origins of the diversity of
life. Joseph Smith Junior wrote a laughingly transparent fake religious text (they are all fake, but his is particularly transparent,
and the process by which his religion started is well documented.)



Darwin's works forwarded our knowledge of where we actually come from. Smith's work did not, and can be
considered a step backward for human knowledge. He lied. Deliberately. Perhaps with the
best of intentions, but I doubt that. He was a huckster and a charlatan, springing from a region that was quite famous from
them. Again, look at the history of the burnt over district.

"As for the evidence for a lost civilization. Do you believe in El Dorado? Atlantis? Or are they myths and legends? Lies told to children like
Santa's Worksop at the North Pole? "

Without evidence no. You can site various potential sources for the Atlantis myth or that of El Dorado (or even
Santa Claus). Just like you can trace the history and origin of various religions and the changes wrought in their imaginary friends
over time.

How were the heads put up on Easter Island and who did it?

Native people and the mechanism is rather simple (if labour intensive).

Why did they do it? There are still mysteries in the world and I refuse to believe that we already know
everything that has ever happened on this planet.

Yes, but we solve mysteries by investigation, not by jamming our fingers in our ears and screaming out GodDidIt! GodDidIt!
GodDidIt! The moment you site god, any god as the explanation, you have explained nothing, as you do not have an explanation for
god.

In response to the animals, well species also go extinct, we've proven that pretty well with the carrier pigeon

And the Dodo, Stellar's Sea Cow, etc. Yes. And we have relics of them in museums and can
even go to Mauritius (in the case of the dodo) and recover additional remains; they are part of the archaeological record. We have
separate written accounts of them from contemporary sources. We have no such record for the legions of animals noted in the Book of Mormon which did not exist
in Pre-Colombian north America. So your argument is invalidated utterly.

. I once heard that if we stopped caring for our domestic animals that most would die out, unable to fend for themselves and becoming prey for the wild
animals.

That's not the real reason, most have been selectively bred to the point where they are no longer naturally viable.
The modern Turkey has problems with fornication due to the increased thickness of the breast. Modern Milk cows produce so much
milk that if they are not milked regularly, unfortunate things happen.

Could been what happened to their beasts, don't know, don't care. You may view me as the guy who's saying the world is flat but I see you much
the same.

Don't know, don't care? You would rather wallow in ignorance than bring to bear your critical thinking skills on what is a rather
simple question. Shame on you Lord Panther. Shame on you.

So where are the bones? A civilization as large as the one the Book of Mormon survives, with metal working, vast
herds, etc. That would produce huge piles of trash, and the bones would be very, very, distinct.



Even a casual examination of the Book of Mormon suggests multiple way in which its veracity can be disproved. I
have demonstrated several already. Most pertaining to the nature of large metal working, temple building, agrarian societies and the
marks they leave on the territory they occupy.

If belief without evidence is crazy then must I only believe what I have seen, heard, felt, tasted, and smelled? I have never been to France. Should I not
believe in it?

You have the capacity to reproduce the France experiment should you choose to do so. Do so. Broaden your mind. I found my visit to Utah
very eye opening.

Well other people have been there, there are pictures? Despite the same evidence existing for U.S. astronauts walking on the moon, some people still
don't believe that happened.

Some people believe is a cosmic Jewish zombie who had to die for the sins of Rib-man and snake woman. That does not
make it true. Preponderance of evidence and the nature of collusion make such claims rather silly.

There is mountains of evidence that the Holocaust happened but some people don't believe in that either. Some people believe that
there was a second gun man that shot John F. Kennedy. That 9/11 was an inside job. The conspiracy theories go on and on. Some of it causing people to act in
violent ways. Some people believe that socialism will solve all the world's problems. Some people believe that government is the cause of all the
problems the world faces. My belief has led me to commit acts of charity and service to friends and complete strangers.

Funny. I have done, and continue to do the same for purely secular reasons and I didn't need an imaginary
friend to do so. Would you have committed those same acts of charity without your belief? Is belief necessary for
'good' acts? Obviously not.

I did good deeds and if my motivation was selfish does it invalidate the good I did? If I gave twenty dollars to a bum on the on-ramp
of the freeway, knowing that nothing would ever come of it, would that make my actions more noble? If I helped a friend move, knowing that I would never hear
from them again, am I more righteous? Maybe, but I'll leave the verdict up to the judge and maybe I'll do enough good that I'll learn not to
think about myself. I'm not perfect yet, got to work towards something. : ) Still I fail to see how the, as you put it 'bat shit crazy ideas'
taught to me from the Book of Mormon and the Bible, are dangerous to myself or to others and why you must try to disprove them.

We could start with the institutionalized racism and sexism in the Mormon church. Any women priests
yet? How about your church making it clear on the position of marriage for homosexual couples? Delibearately denying them happiness
because your imaginary friend, through the lying voices of the prophets disagree?



How about going on mission and convincing people that it is better to believe an obvious lie (the stories in the Book of Mormon) in the
face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Not teaching that the stories are allegorical; teaching a lesson, but insisting that they
are true.



That is not a good act. Not even close.

Why I can't take someone else's word that God exists or that I can't have had an experience that proves it myself.

Any experiment should be repeatable by anyone. To use your own example, you can go to France.
Was it god or mental illness? Or an emotional need? Or just a fucking lie to get laid?

Belief without evidence may be dangerous but what criteria do you use to validate that evidence? You seem quick enough to dismiss my evidence.

Sorry Panther, you have not actually given any evidence yet. What is your evidence for the truth of the Book of
Mormon? Or the existence of god? If you can come up with a means to actually prove the existence of god you will win the Nobel prize; but I am not holding my
breath.

Who do you trust to give you the right information? How do you tell if someone is telling the truth or the truth
as they see it? Since you don't have faith in God, do you have faith in your teachers? Your parents? Your friends?

I trust in the current consensus in science. Which is nice as it has a mechanism for self correction that does not
require the current Prophet of Church to have yet another self-serving revelation (see the Satanic verses of the Koran, or much of the Book of Mormon, or even
recent 'revelations' your own church.)



I trust my own experience. I trust, but I verify. I have the means to check out most claims,
and if not, I can draw on published, peer reviewed papers for additional information.

The comment about not voting because of my race was more of response to Fidooki's statistic about 70% of blacks voting for Prop 8. Didn't have
anything to do with the religion.

I thought your comments on racism, while excellent in spirit, were neatly contrasted by your church's very recent history of
institutionalized racism and deserved to be highlighted.

.

Cheers,

Shayne