Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Egan_BW]

All the religions I've seen do in fact posit that the universe was created with us as the center.

[Trekkin]

All the religions I've seen do in fact posit that the universe was created with us as the center.

Mormonism technically doesn't, at least in its expanded canon; it claims Earth was rearranged from existing matter over 6000 years near a planet (or star) called Kolob (technically while the whole Solar System orbited the star Kae-e-vanrash, which orbited Kli-flos-is-es, which orbited Kolob) then packed up and shipped here. Kolob is furthermore considered to be the planet nearest the Throne of God, and has been claimed to be various sorts of centers of the then-known universe several times.

[Egan_BW]

I... I am legitimately unsure whether you are joking or whether that is an actual thing.

That's the Mormon guarantee.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's a thing. Here's a secret recording of the secret Mormon endowment ceremony, granted to wealthy and influential members. (It also happens to be some sweet ASMR, if you're into that sort of thing.)

Warning: You may be banished to the Outer Darkness by Mormon Jesus for the violation of His covenant if you watch this video, and especially if you find it hilarious. Eternal banishment only applicable after bodily death, Mormon Jesus reserves the right to defer judgement at any time and for any reason, void where prohibited.

[TheDarkStar]

So I'm Mormon/LDS, and that's... not quite right.

Admittedly, I don't have personal knowledge of some ceremonies in my religion, but I wouldn't talk about their details if I did. However, they are in no way restricted to wealthy/influential members; the only requirements are that someone has been a member for over a year and is found to be worthy by the leader of their congregation and then by the guy in charge of the congregations in the area. This ends up being all worthy (here, worthy = actually living the religion) adult members who aren't recent converts and are above 25 or so (and a good chunk of those between 18 and 25).

I can link you to some relevant holy text for some of the more confusing things, though. In particular, the Book of Abraham details some experiences that the biblical Abraham had. Part of it can be summarized as "he saw stuff that was hard to convey in words" but works to convey the general idea of God being in charge of creating the universe and that there are rules but it's complicated. It's kind of similar to Revelations or the last chapter(s?) of Daniel - a text about a lot of stuff so different from what the prophetic author knew that the details are hard to follow but the core ideas are obvious.

[Starver]

You know, in DnD settings there aren't any atheists. Even if someone hates the gods, it's silly for them to believe there are no gods.

(That's not what an atheist does, though. Just saying.)

[Trekkin]

So I'm Mormon/LDS, and that's... not quite right.

Admittedly, I don't have personal knowledge of some ceremonies in my religion, but I wouldn't talk about their details if I did.

"You're wrong, but I don't know and wouldn't tell you why" is hardly a persuasive argument. That said, per the 2006 Handbook of Instructions on Wikileaks, there are cases in which someone over 25 "living the religion" can't be endowed: it says on page 78 that "A member who has undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive a recommend," for example.

I think MSH is confusing endowment with the stuff concerning bishoprics and stake presidencies, though. Endowment is for (kind of) every LDS, and the setting apart for missionary service is likewise common (except to those who are wheelchair-bound, overweight, or HIV positive, among other things. They really don't like HIV, to the point of demanding an HIV test of missionary candidates who have "participated in homosexual activity." I'm curious why they're so specifically against this one retrovirus.)

[TheDarkStar]

So I'm Mormon/LDS, and that's... not quite right.

Admittedly, I don't have personal knowledge of some ceremonies in my religion, but I wouldn't talk about their details if I did.

"You're wrong, but I don't know and wouldn't tell you why" is hardly a persuasive argument. That said, per the 2006 Handbook of Instructions on Wikileaks, there are cases in which someone over 25 "living the religion" can't be endowed: it says on page 78 that "A member who has undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive a recommend," for example.

I think MSH is confusing endowment with the stuff concerning bishoprics and stake presidencies, though. Endowment is for (kind of) every LDS, and the setting apart for missionary service is likewise common (except to those who are wheelchair-bound, overweight, or HIV positive, among other things. They really don't like HIV, to the point of demanding an HIV test of missionary candidates who have "participated in homosexual activity." I'm curious why they're so specifically against this one retrovirus.)

There are tricky cases where people need to talk to their bishop/stake president and possibly other regional leaders. I don't know the details but I know that people who've committed serious crimes (armed robbery/murder/etc) need extra approval from church leadership for some things. For more details, you could check the church guidebooks (the most up-to-date ones are available online).

And missionary service is also fairly common. But yeah, there are illnesses that would severely impact someone's missionary service - many missions are in less developed parts of the world where it would simply be difficult for someone in a wheelchair or severely overweight to function or with for someone serious illnesses to get medication. Some people have to serve in their home country to access medication; people with serious disabilities can serve church service missions instead.

I have tickets for the Book of Mormon later this year.

This reinforces my belief that I may well literally die of laughter while attending.

Just remember, the book is better than the show .

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You know, in DnD settings there aren't any atheists. Even if someone hates the gods, it's silly for them to believe there are no gods.

(That's not what an atheist does, though. Just saying.)

If this is some thing about the "lack of belief" argument, please throw it in the semantic compost pile with all the rest.

[Trekkin]

So I'm Mormon/LDS, and that's... not quite right.

Admittedly, I don't have personal knowledge of some ceremonies in my religion, but I wouldn't talk about their details if I did.

"You're wrong, but I don't know and wouldn't tell you why" is hardly a persuasive argument. That said, per the 2006 Handbook of Instructions on Wikileaks, there are cases in which someone over 25 "living the religion" can't be endowed: it says on page 78 that "A member who has undergone an elective transsexual operation may not receive a recommend," for example.

I think MSH is confusing endowment with the stuff concerning bishoprics and stake presidencies, though. Endowment is for (kind of) every LDS, and the setting apart for missionary service is likewise common (except to those who are wheelchair-bound, overweight, or HIV positive, among other things. They really don't like HIV, to the point of demanding an HIV test of missionary candidates who have "participated in homosexual activity." I'm curious why they're so specifically against this one retrovirus.)

There are tricky cases where people need to talk to their bishop/stake president and possibly other regional leaders. I don't know the details but I know that people who've committed serious crimes (armed robbery/murder/etc) need extra approval from church leadership for some things. For more details, you could check the church guidebooks (the most up-to-date ones are available online).

That's not the case for the exception I mentioned, though. The Handbook of Instructions says nothing about talking to their bishop or stake president if you've had "an elective transsexual operation", though. It's just a flat "no". It's not for a crime, either -- criminals do need extra approval, yes, but it's possible for them to get it. Per the Handbook, they have no such option for people who have undergone sex reassignment surgery.

[TheDarkStar]

I can't find it on the current one (2010 version). I'm sure it's there somewhere, but the cited page has unrelated content on it in the current version.

[Trekkin]

I can't find it on the current one (2010 version). I'm sure it's there somewhere, but the cited page has unrelated content on it in the current version.

Oh, yeah, they reorganized significantly from the 2006 version. It's in 16.3.16 now (page 146 in my copy), under "Persons Who Are Considering or Have Undergone a Transsexual Operation." Notably, they may now be baptized and confirmed with the approval of the First Presidency, but still not given a temple recommend. This is also stated in 3.3.4, on page 13.

[Starver]

You know, in DnD settings there aren't any atheists. Even if someone hates the gods, it's silly for them to believe there are no gods.

(That's not what an atheist does, though. Just saying.)

If this is some thing about the "lack of belief" argument, please throw it in the semantic compost pile with all the rest.

There's a lot of difference between a non-believer and a disbeliever. You have to qualify "atheist" with soft/hard, implicit/explicit, weak/strong to (differently) define what you mean, and until then you only know that there's no belief in a God-or-gods, not what kind of other beliefs there are, if any*.

Come back at me with the Dorfl definition, if you want, but I have no related beliefs and I inhabit a recognised area of the atheist splodge in a Venn (or at least Euler) diagram. That's all.

* - Of course there will be some. But they don't have to about gods, so are outside this scope.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, actually, I don't have to qualify that. I used to adhere to this argument like glue myself, but even then it reeked of just trying to avoid the argument. The past ten years of debate amongst nonbelievers has been consumed by this silly back-and-forth of atheists, agnostics, and theists trying to absorb and sever one another. "I just have a lack of belief in gods", "Atheism can't exist without a thousand years of Christian philosophy", "Well if you don't knoooowww...".

It's nonsense that doesn't represent the way real people actually think about their beliefs. Nobody does this shit outside of an argument, it only comes to exist in that space in lieu of thinking of a real argument and then vanishes from thought the rest of the time. Who the hell says they have a "lack of belief" in anything other than God? Who the hell says that atheism is mutant Christianity other than a grasping theologian (and Zizek, that little tart)? Who the hell makes their standard of knowledge asymptotic regression to zero?

Atheists don't think god exists, agnostics aren't sure if god exists, and theists think god exists. A person can be an agnostic in conjunction with another option if that describes their beliefs, but don't go contaminating the history of gnosticism by trying to make a complete system by reusing the word now. That is how the world sees it and how it ought to be treated. Do not dare to utter the word "percent" in response to that statement. One's philosophy is not actually contingent upon math until the moment one says it is for the sake of an argument. Our senses of certainty and uncertainty are far more general, and more importantly are sufficient for that purpose.

I don't know that I'm not Christ Returned and that I ought not to be feeding on the blood of my followers (Christ was actually a vampire), but I'm certain enough of it to not even consider it. It would be crazy, the sign of a pedantic pettiness or else actual mental illness, to seriously consider such a thing without impetus.

Take all of the internet religion arguments not backed by more solid philosophy and throw them in the garbage, you'll be better off for it.

[Starver]

The past ten years of debate amongst nonbelievers has been consumed by this silly back-and-forth of atheists, agnostics, and theists trying to absorb and sever one another.

Oh, now you're just being provocative. Using an Oxford Comma, indeed! I can't discuss things with someone as misguided as you!!

Joke! As if I need to say it...

Atheists don't think god exists Yes, which is not necessarily the same as thinking that God doesn't exist, agnostics aren't sure if god exists No, they (and I am one) consider that nothing is known or knowable, but this does not stop them from having a definite opinion either way, and theists think at least one god of any kind exists.

ClarifiedTFY

(In antiquity, "atheist" also pejoritively applied to those who did not believe in the True God, akin to Heretic (one who should know better) or Heathen (one who doesn't yet know better, but ought to do so with 'our' help).

A person can be an agnostic in conjunction with another option if that describes their beliefs, but don't go contaminating the history of gnosticism by trying to make a complete system by reusing the word now.

Agnosticism is not "against gnosticism", one can be firmly agnostic about the gnosis but subscribe to it anyway. And I'm not reusing the word in any new way, merely using it in the form that Darwin's Bulldog coined it for, a philosophy that has been known for centuries under the 'broad church' of skepticism.


To discuss religion, one needs to know how others see it. I know what others think they mean, when they (self-?)describe as atheist, and so I need to explain that I (self-)describe atheism as the lack that it is, in me. I am in all the ways explained (and, for new terms, in ways explainable) atheistic, agnostic, reserve the right to be deistic (God/gods don't do anything, if existing) and, outside of interesting discussions, extremely apatheistic.