DigitalShadow

Members
  • Posts

    1314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DigitalShadow

  1. As a non-member recently introduced into LDS culture (3 years ago), I've always found this concept interesting. Initially it struck me as rather odd and vaguely superstitious to say that the Lord would demand you return part of your financial increases or he will withhold blessings. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but it feels like my life has been full of what would be perceived as blessings even though I'm agnostic and always have been. If I'm being punished for my lack of faith and lack of financial contributions to the church, I have not felt it. As I have learned more about the reasons behind it and the good the church does with the money, it certainly seems less strange, but I still can't say I fully understand the concept. I know that the Lord is not an accountant tallying every peice of income you get and expecting His cut, but I can't help but feel that way sometimes when people talk about it. Are there direct results that are supposed to come from paying or not paying tithing? To me it seems like members *should* pay tithing to be more faithful members, but to expect something as a result of paying or not paying seems superstitious to me. But then again I don't think the Lord blesses the faithful any more than the faithless in the mortal world from my personal observations, but I think many people here disagree.
  2. From my point of view, I don't think it's easier to be atheist or to be faithful, both have their challenges, each of us have different perspectives on those challenges so one might appear easier than the other. People of faith tend to see atheism as a cop-out because in their mind an atheist need not follow any rules of morality because there is no reckoning after death for them, but they forget that there are plenty of consequences in this mortal world for being a bad person and in fact many people I know who are atheists are good people simply because it is the right thing to do and they have the opportunity to do it. A jerk is a jerk and I don't think religion (or lack there of) changes much. People have their own internal struggles with morality whether they think they'll be judged on it after they die or not. It is also true that faith is something that must be exercised, where as lack of faith does not, but that does not make having faith inherently harder. Knowing with certainty that you will still exist after you die and be taken into the loving arms of your God is certainly an enticing thought and is much easier than trying to contemplate what it is like to not exist. I can't speak much on the trials of having faith as that has never been my strong point, but I'm sure many people here are aware how difficult it is. I'm certainly not trying to say it's easy to have faith, but I think that few people here understand how difficult it can be to not have faith and to be raised that way, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on the subject and possibly dispell the myth that all atheists believe the way they do because they are simply shirking responsibility and taking the easy path.
  3. I think you may be reading a bit too much into my answer. I was simply saying that I've always felt there was a POSSIBILITY of God existing. I have never "felt" God's presence in my life, I simply concede that the majority of the population may not be crazy and there could possibly be something to this whole "God" thing.
  4. Interesting post, I will offer my opinions on them. Keep in mind that I am agnostic so you can take it for what it's worth. In some cases yes, but I think in general it is simply the pursuit of universal truths. Not all, but indeed most do and to varying degrees even. I disagree here, I believe one can live a full life without religion in it. I know other people disagree but I'm simply stating my own opinion from my own experience. God has yet to find me, but I patiently await the day that he does. Yes, that is indeed what the Bible says. More accurately Christians believe they correctly recognize who Jesus is, but it is all a matter of your own personal beliefs.
  5. Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better now and what you've been talking about. I've started the book of Mormon with my wife already, I will continue through it to the end and pray about it, but I don't know that it will change my opinion. I tend to disagree about the balance of rationality and irrationality, but then again I'm somewhat baised because I lean much more to the rational side as you've probably noticed. I have gone through life valuing rationality and disregarding what is irrational and it has served me well so far, but to each his own. I will continue to search for knowledge of God and everything else in my own way, and I thank you for your insight into the matter.
  6. Perhaps I'm misreading your post so please correct me if I am, but are you suggesting we abandon reason? I've always thought that it was our reason that allows us to rise above being a mindless pack of animals, not the opposite. It keeps us from simply believing everything that we hear as truth and alows us to distinguish for ourselves what we accept as truth and what to ignore. BTW, we live in Salt Lake City now, but my wife lived in Orem and says the same about the strange people :)
  7. Thank you for the idea. I've never really thought of it that way before. I'm not sure it changes anything for me right now, but it certainly gives me something to think about, and I do appreciate it.
  8. Yeah, it was starting to melt off too until that snow a few days ago. Maybe I'll wait till summer for further adventures. Seriously though, in my original post that started this entertaining round of textual sparring, I only meant to say that I was going to stop pestering people around here in an effort to rationalize religion as I have found out that the first step doesn't have to be rational. I was not saying that I'm completely closing my mind/heart to the concept. Besides, my wife is LDS and I live in this strange land called Utah, so it's not like I can simply ignore religion completely.
  9. You weren't looking for answers from me either, does that make you a troll? I was just trying to explain something to you that you obviously don't want to hear. You say you understand agnostics, but your statements continually prove that you don't. If I were to make inaccurate statements about your belief, are you saying you wouldn't try to correct my view on the LDS faith? Faith exists outside of logic. You were talking about faith, I was commenting the logical paradox. It's still a paradox, we're just talking about different things. I am actually seeking the truth and I am interested in PC's advice, in fact I think it's the best advice I've received in a long while and I thanked him for it. I just hadn't seen it yet because I was still replying to your post. That coule be true, but it doesn't make this any less fun And one of the things that has always bugged me about the faithful is that they never acept atheism/agnosticism as a valid point of view. Yes there are many people bearing witness to the existance of God, but so many of them bear witness to different Gods with conflicting agendas. I'm not denying that they felt something or even that it was something of the divine, I'm just understandably skeptical until I feel such things for myself. More accurately, I climbed up the mountain myself as well, looked around, didn't feel anything special so I went back down. Maybe I climbed the wrong mountain, but it certainly wasn't from lack of effort.
  10. That sums up my experiences here quite nicely, I do believe you understand where I'm coming from perhaps better than any religious person I've talked to (both on the forum or in real life). Interestingly enough, I have wrestled with all of those questions before and that is partly why I am here. I don't claim to know the answers, but here's my opinions on them so far: 1. Can God be? It is a definite possibility, I've always felt that way. 2. If so, what would He most likely be like? If God were to exist, I think he would most likely be the initial creator of all the matter in the universe and the complex set of rules that seems to govern it that are still not fully understood. 3. Are there more than one? There quite possibly could be. 4. Would He try to interact with a few of his creation, or would He want to express himself to all peoples? It could be that all of reality as we know it is God's great experiment and like any good scientist, He is not interfering. It could also be that we are his loving creation held special throughout all the universe and he watches over us. I think either is possible, but there's more evidence for the former. 5. Is He good or bad? Does He want to strengthen us, or have us to serve him? Given that most people view God as omnipotent, if He intended to have us serve Him, I don't think he would have much trouble with that. Given that we are not all slaves of God, it stands to reason that if He were to exist, and also if He were to interfere, it would be in the name of strenghthening us.
  11. I do believe every word that God says, but He has never talked to me, hence my current situation. People say that the Bible is the word of God, but that's just the word of people, God has not told me himself that it is his word so until then I'm justifiably skeptical since there are many works people claim to be the word of God, many of which conflict with each other. Glad to see that you're starting to understand my viewpoint. No offense but I wasn't looking for answers from you. You just seemed to have a misunderstanding of my viewpoint that I wanted to correct. I'm not "blaming" God for anything, I was simply commenting on the logical paradox of God demanding faith and devotion while at the same time providing me (me personally, not talking about other people) with no evidence for his existance and endowing me with logical reasoning skills. (eewww... Reubens are gross) If you're not claiming to know the Truth, then you should have no issue with my personal conclusion that there is no evidence for it. I do hope you're truly having fun as well, I just worried that maybe you were taking my viewpoint a bit too personally. I always enjoy a good discussion, if not, it would be rather silly of me to persist in it.
  12. The pleasure was all mine. I really enjoy hanging out with people that have different viewpoints, I usually find that I learn more that way and I can honestly say I've learned a lot here and enjoyed the time spent. All the best to you as well!
  13. Hey, I can make absurd generalizations about viewpoints I don't understand too, just watch. I see religion as a cop-out: "I don't want to have to think and investigate the truth for myself so I'll take everyone else's word for it and blindly put my faith in this one book ignoring all the others" I'm always in search of the truth, and I never viewed anyone as oppressing me. I have no idea what your talking about, but go on. I'm patiently awaiting evidence, a feeling, or anything for that matter to urge me to continue my search again in whatever direction that takes me. I don't presume to judge anyone, you are the only one judging here. I'm simply saying that I haven't seen or felt any evidence, why is that so hard for you to understand? You can't tell me what I've seen or felt, just as I can't tell you what you've seen or felt. This is not a matter of pride. I gladly admit how little I know of the infinite universe, but then again I am not the one claiming to know the only truth.
  14. Free agency... yes I have the ability to choose, but I can not change the way my brain works and that is what I am talking about. Yes, to many people these things never come into conflict, but to me they do and I am only speaking for myself. Sorry, that is my own original writing, google it all you like if you don't believe me, and yes, it is an agnostic philosophy, so what? It makes sense to me and that's all I'm saying, if you don't agree with it, fine, I'm not saying you should. Unlike you, I actually respect other people's beliefs and viewpoints. Sorry, I'm not so arrogant as to say that my beliefs are patently obvious and everyone should believe the same way I do. I've left my mind open, as it still is, the only strident ignorance I see here is yours. I've investigated as far as I can with no evidence to go on, you can tell me to have faith till you turn blue in the face, but the fact remains that there are countless other religions out there with the same pitch and equal evidence, so how am I being ignorant or unreasonable? Yes, I have "faith" in my own reasoning abilities because they have proven to work. By most people's definitions it is not "faith" if you simply have confidence in something that has shown to work before. You say there is evidence of the divine but all the evidence I've heard relies on feelings that I haven't experienced. All I'm saying is that until I have something to go on and personally experience the divine in any way, I don't see any reason to believe one way or the other. That is not "apathy", that is common sense. So if it makes you feel better to misinterpret my words and convince yourself that I'm simply ignoring the obvious go ahead. The fact remains that I came here with an open mind in search of the truth, and your mind is completely closed to anything but the Gospel.
  15. Thank you to everyone for your responses. However, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is not in my nature to accept anything with unquestioning certainty. If God has a problem with that, he should not have created me this way. It does not make sense to me that God would endow me with strong logical reasoning, then expect me to throw it away and blindly give my devotion to Him. No matter how it is phrased, accepting the Gospel for me requires a irrational leap of blind faith which I am not capable of. I realize that other people have had strong personal experiences to reinforce their belief and I'm very happy for everyone who simply "knows" the truth, but it's simply not for me. Many people may see me as denying the obvious truths of the Gospel, but from my perspective, there is just as much emperical evidence for Thor or Zeus, yet no one accuses me of denying them. There is a big difference between denying and failing to see any evidence for something. I have not seen or felt anything in support of any God, and until I do, I don't see how any entity could reasonably expect to have my faith. As always, I will remain open to evidence on either side in any form, but I will no longer actively be trying to rationalize and incorporate my own belief in the church. I have heard from a few people that fear is the opposite of faith, but I don't think that is entirely true. Uncertainty is the opposite of faith, and what becomes of that is up to you. I am perfectly content with not knowing, and even if I "knew" God to exist, I don't believe I would live my life any differently. I do what I feel is right because I have been fortunate enough to be allowed to do so. Thank you again to everyone, I've enjoyed our discussions. Nothing here is meant to offend, I just wanted to offer some parting words before agreeing to disagree and going our seperate ways.
  16. Very interesting read. I think that article sums up the answer to my question quite nicely.
  17. But isn't everything in science a theory rather than fact? Science doesn't claim to have facts, just approximations based on evidence. I think that's a fundemental misconception many people have about science.
  18. Scientists have been able synthesize the DNA of, and create a working retrovirus that has actually been extinct for millions of years from fragments of retrovirus DNA that have been imbedded in our own genome. But I don't believe we have created matter yet, so if God is the one that created all the matter in the universe in the first place, then yes, it came from heavenly father first. It's all very fascinating though.
  19. I don't think I know how to have faith, even after a whole lengthy thread about what it means to other people, I still can't wrap my brain fully around the concept. Every time I try, my brain rejects it.
  20. I have the same issue with the absoluteness of science. In fact, anyone that claims a scientific principle is absolute, isn't a very good scientist. The problem is that I apply the same critical thinking to religion and have problems with the acceptance of the "absoluteness" of the Gospel. This is exactly the point I've been trying to get to. I have looked into Creation science as well, but it never seemed as plausable or to have as much supporting evidence in my opition. I've done fairly in depth research on the scientific evidence on both sides, before I reached the personal conclusion that there is more evidence for evolution than opposing theories. I could name many famous scientists that are atheists, but it means nothing as most scientists separate their religious beliefs from their work and it is a personal choice for each person to make.
  21. I am the one who should apologize as I appear to have somewhat misinterpreted your words as a rather personal attack. Maybe it's a slight persecution complex (if you think Mormons are persecuted for their religion, try telling people you're atheist/agnostic.) I apologize for assuming the worst and I really do enjoy our exchanges here. So, yes religion holds no utilitarian value for me as you stated in your previous post, but what does that have to do with anything? That is not why I'm seeking religion. I perfectly happy with the person I am and how I treat others. If I should die and end up standing judgement before a just God, I find it hard to believe he would find serious fault with my personal philosophies and send me to Hell. With that said, is the reason you believe in the church because it holds utilitarian value for you? Should it even matter? The truth is the truth regardless of how useful it is to you or anyone else for that matter, and I am simply in pursuit of the truth. Perhaps you are right and that all my exploration into religion will ultimately be fruitless until I embrace the concept of faith. My background and frame of reference seem to make the concept of faith go against my being though. It is not in my nature to simply accept unquestionable truths since to me everything is to be analyzed (including prevailing scientific theories) before being an accepted part of my thinking, and even then it is not completely immune if new evidence comes to light. I can't seem to turn that part of me off and even worse, I'm not sure if I'd want to. Do you think there's some part of my brain that isn't functioning properly since most people don't seem to have problems with this? (not being sarcastic, I really wonder this)
  22. I am a software developer and I'm very good at what I do. I solve logical problems all day as it is part of my job. My problem solving skills are very well honed, but as a software developer, I have also learned that it is impossible to take everything into account and if you never acknowledge that you may be missing something, you won't be very good. I come here looking to find whatever I may have missed. I'm more than likely not the first person to have thought about all this, and there are many people who still believe in the church, so it stands to reason that maybe someone else has solved what appears to be a logical paradox from my point of view.
  23. I'm sorry if my scientific frame of reference bores you. I can no more change it than you can change your religious frame of reference. I would also ask that you not put words in my mouth. If I truly found religion so useless, I would not be here in the first place asking questions. I believe the church has done a great deal of good for many people, my wife included. Yes, everything starts as an intellectual pursuit for me, as I don't know how to start any other way. Does that mean I must abandon my intellect to join the church? Despite what you may think of me, I have no preconceived view of what God MUST conform to in order to accept him, I just want things to make sense before I dive head first into the church. Is that such an unreasonable request? I also noticed that you adressed almost nothing of my original post. Did you come here simply to warn others about my overanalyzing ways, or do you have something useful to add?
  24. I can't seem to find either of those available for purchase online. Also, I'm not sure the publication dates on those but there has been a lot of scientific discovery in the past few decades and I was hoping to find something that addresses it, rather than the standard look to the Gospel for all answers, regardless of what is discovered.
  25. We have a large amount of knowledge that has been gained through the scientific method, theories in science change, but only because new evidence has been brought to light. Many LDS people I talk to have faith that science and the Gospel will eventually converge, but from where I'm standing it looks like they have already diverged quite a bit, which is my main reason for posting this.