tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-208471962024-03-19T04:44:13.808-07:00Easy to be EntreatedFor those who believe in remaining teachable and are receptive to lifetime learning. In particular, the topics of leaving Mormonism, public policy, genealogy, and psychology will be explored.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-66538213446512519502014-11-23T12:20:00.000-08:002014-11-23T12:20:27.266-08:00The 'Good News' is only good if we buy the 'Bad News'<span data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$0:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">I use this analogy. A salesman comes to your town and tells you that everyone in this town has a terrible, awful disease which no one knew about until this salesman shows up. Although the salesman can offer no proof of this disease he swears we will all suffer and die from it. However, he says the "good news" is he has the cure, and one can only get the cure from him, but he will save you and you will be eternally grateful to him if you but buy his product.</span><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$1:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$3:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><span data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">Meaning: Christians tell us that we all have sin and that sin will bring us a terrible awful fate. Nevermind that until they came along, no one ever suspected we had this terrible condition and the Christians can't offer one shred of proof that we have 'sin' or that a terrible fate awaits us. But, the 'good news' aka Gospel is they have the only cure and we can only get it from them - one can only be saved from sin and hell through Christ, not by living a good life or practicing peaceful Buddhism, etc. We are supposed to 'buy into' their product, i.e., believe it wholeheartedly (hook, line, and sinker) and accept Christ as our personal Savior and be eternally grateful to him.</span><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$5:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$7:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><span data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$8:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">The 'good news' only exists if one believes the premise of the 'bad news' that we have sinned and will be damned unless we accept their product. Sounds like a snake oil sales pitch to me. I think we in the town would do better to live like we did before Christianity came to town, before we had ever been accused of having the horrible condition called 'sin' which I have no reason to believe exists.</span><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$9:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$11:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><span data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$12:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">Oh, yeah, and the salesman tells those of us who are skeptical that even though he can't prove we have this deadly disease, we better not chance it, because if he is right that we have this disease and we did not accept the cure, it will be too late to buy his cure once we start experiencing the terrible fate.</span><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$13:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><br data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$15:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;" /><span data-reactid=".f.1:3:1:$comment903958402948966_903995282945278:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$16:0" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;">How manipulative is that?!?!</span>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-23259116669639311042014-11-19T17:34:00.004-08:002014-11-19T17:34:23.304-08:00My Take on Miraculous Experiences<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$0:0">So, what is my bias in the way I think about these experiences? I do believe that in all likelihood, the supernatural doesn't exist. I believe the natural world/cosmos is all there is. So, my bias is each and every one of these experiences probably have a natural explanation. I have read thousand of these experiences (premonitions, fulfilled prophecies, answered prayers, near-death experiences, astral projections, Voodoo curses, ghost encounters, feeling touched by dead relatives, divining rod, ESP, alien sightings, etc), and I have never encountered an experience for which I could not come up with at least one idea of how it may have happened naturally using nothing more than known processes such as: confirmation bias, illusory correlations, faulty memory reconstructions, hallucinations, etc. The problem is these events don't happen under careful, skeptical scientific observation. Every time scientists have made careful observations, the supernatural thing that supposedly can't be scientifically explained never happens. I guess ESP is camera shy. LOL. </span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$1:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$3:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0">Susan Blackmore, a scientific researcher who graduated from Oxford I believed set out to prove her skeptical professors wrong by proving these supernatural things were real. She began researcher as a believer because she had experienced what is commonly called astral projection. She spent decades of her career trying to show something non-natural was going on. Eventually, she became convinced by her own research that there isn't any evidence of things going on that cannot be understood through a natural worldview.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$5:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$7:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$8:0">James Randi is a guy offering $1,000,000 to any one who will submit their supernatural powers (ESP, divining rod, etc) to his scientific examination and pass some tests that would prove they have some supernatural ability. No one has ever claimed that million dollars.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$9:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$11:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$12:0">I don't believe that what we have to explain is what the person claims happened. We have to explain what actually happened, and the only way we can know what actually happened is if we have carefully collected scientific data on the event, which we almost never have. Human memories are suspect, human interpretations of their experiences are suspect, human perceptions are suspect, and human sensations are suspects. We know that they all have been wrong from time to time. So, we cannot use that faulty anecdotal data to establish extraordinary claims. It takes extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$13:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$15:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$16:0">It is clear that these types of human experiences happen quite often. It is not clear that they are what they seem to be, even what they seem to be to the participant of the experience.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$17:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$19:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$20:0">Even when we cannot think of any natural way to explain an event all that leaves us with is an unexplained event. We have no reason to jump to a "God did it" accusation. Theoretically, there are nearly an infinite number of possible explanations (i.e., Gremlins did it, Fairies did it, Good witches from the other side did it, Magnetic impulses from negative energy did it, etc). But, not one of those things is an explanation at all. In order for any of them to be an explanation, we would have to understand HOW such a signal to come home was generated and how it traveled and how it is received, etc). Without that one cannot have an explanation, at best one only has an accusation. For us to acknowledge that science has an explanation, we expect science to take us step by step and show us how such a thing could happen using known physical forces. If science can't do that, we say science does not have an explanation. We have to hold all of these religious "explanations" to the same standard.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$21:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$23:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$24:0">Just because we can't think of a natural way to explain an experience that doesn't mean that it wasn't naturally caused. Now, to be fair, just because we can't think of a supernatural way to explain an experience that doesn't mean that it wasn't supernaturally caused. But, here is the advantage of the natural explanation - every phenomena that we have ever looked at that was formerly believed to be supernatural in origin has turned out to have natural causes (thunder, storms, death, diversity in species, planetary orbits, etc). Nothing has ever been found to have a divine/demonic/fairy dust explanation. Furthermore, natural explanations not only use natural forces and processes which we know exist, they also use natural elements (atoms, cells, genes, etc) which we know exist. Supernatural explanations would use elements that we don't even know if they exist (gods, angels, spirits) and forces or processes that we don't know exist (immaterial entities interacting with material substance, spirits leaving bodies, telepathic communication through unknown mediums, etc). </span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$25:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$27:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$28:0">By the way, I have had countless of these experiences that might be hard to explain naturally. I don't deny I had the experiences, but I do question the interpretation I gave them at the time (that they were acts of God, etc). For me, anecdotal evidence (aka personal experience) will never be sufficient to reliably tell me about the nature of existence. In short, I do not trust my interpretations of my personal experiences at all.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$29:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$31:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$32:0">Permit me to speculate on what may be the natural causes of premonitions. Our bodies are bombarded with a lot of stimulation all throughout the day. Signals are being sent to our brain constantly, but we are only consciously aware of a tiny bit. For instance, if you are wearing shoes, the whole time you have been reading this post, your brain has been receiving messages from the receptors in your foot that there is pressure being exerted on the top of your foot by your shoe and you were completely unaware of those messages until I just brought our attention to it. So, fact number one - our unconscious mind is receiving and processing signals it receives from the environment without our conscious awareness. Two, our brains are exceptionally good at recognizing patterns or associations between things. For instance, a stirring in the bushes usually indicates there is an animal in the bushes even though we can't see them. Three, there are subtle signals of danger or health problems that we may perceive just below our conscious awareness. Example, our joints might ache before a storm comes due to changes in air pressure. Now, sometimes those joints aches may be strong enough that we become consciously aware of them, and if so we will credit them as the reason we think a storm is coming, but if those ache signals are processed only by an unconscious mind, we may only have the sense (or premonition) a storm is coming, but have no idea why we think that (because the explanation isn't something we are consciously aware of.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$33:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$35:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$36:0">OK, so we know that dogs can be trained to smell low blood sugar in their owners and can alert their owners to that fact so the owners can eat something, etc. And we know some dogs can smell cancerous skin cells and identify which moles are cancerous and which are benign. So, there is a physical chemical being released by the body of someone with low blood sugar and someone with skin cancer that dogs can pick up on in their conscious minds. Our noses aren't as good as a dog's, but in theory our noses could pick up on the chemicals being released by a person with low blood sugar, etc, but the signal be so weak that we are not consciously aware of it. Then, our unconscious could give us the feeling (premonition) that something bad is about to happen to the person even though we don't know why we feel that way because the real reason is outside of our conscious awareness. There could be other clues for other physical ailments. For instance, half the face of a person having a stroke might relax, and although we do not consciously notice it, our subconscious might.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$37:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$39:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$40:0">So, a wife says goodbye to her husband and heads to the mall for some shopping. She is not consciously aware of anything wrong, but she gets a strong feeling (premonition) that something bad is happening at home so she rushes home to find her husband going into shock due to low blood sugar. It may have been that when she was leaving the house her unconscious mind smelled the chemicals that indicated sickness.</span><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$41:0" /><br data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$43:0" /><span data-reactid=".3o.1:3:1:$comment1416447156439=22235715272:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.$end:0:$44:0">This hypothesis of mind could generate scientific tests: can humans detect the scent of low blood sugar, etc. All this post is to show that there could be natural explanations for some premonitions.</span></span>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-9012480300537430912014-06-07T07:40:00.000-07:002014-06-07T07:40:08.231-07:00How I came to no longer believe there is a god (Brief)<span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$0:0">When I was Mormon I thought I had a very strong, intimate relationship with my Heavenly Father. I talked to Him all of the time and I thought he spoke to me through impressions in my mind and feelings in my heart. The problem was those i</span></span><span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px;"><span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0"><span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$0:0">mpressions in my mind and feelings in my heart had led me to believe the Book of Abraham was exactly what Joseph claimed it was. Well, it is crystal clear that the BoA is not what Joseph claimed it was. So, those impressions in my mind and feelings in my heart are at a minimum not a reliable way to find out what is true. It could be that those impressions and feelings are created by me entirely. If they were sometimes true and sometime false, I could not tell the difference because they felt exactly the same. Yet, through these impressions and feelings I experienced God and felt his love, etc, or so I thought. That started my questioning that maybe there was no god, maybe I had never experienced him, maybe he was nothing more than an imaginary friend. I reviewed my entire life history looking for anything definitive that I could cling to that would say, "here, here is something that strongly suggests there is a god". But, I could find nothing, not in my own life or the stories of what has happened in other's lives. I have read of near-death experiences, "miracles", "fulfilled prophecies", "answered prayers", etc. Of course, I have learned to think like a scientist and a skeptic, so stories that might be convincing to others aren't to me.</span><br data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$1:0" /><br data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$3:0" /><span data-reactid=".35.1:3:1:$comment709533295778288_711487438916207:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1:$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$4:0">Then, I also started looking into the history of the Bible which makes much of it look made-up, too. I learned the logical issues that make it impossible for a god (if one exists) to be both all-powerful and all-loving. I learned about the problems with Pascal's Wager. And why the evidence really looks like no thinking entity intervened during the evolution of species or the creation of galaxies and planets. I really came to think that there is no need for the concept of god; it doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of how anything came to be. I came to believe that it is most likely that god is just a made-up concept like fairies and ghosts. I acknowledge that one cannot prove there is no god (or no fairies for that matter). So, there might be a god of some sort existing somewhere, but I highly doubt it.</span></span></span>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-89345831774308592602014-04-14T16:06:00.002-07:002014-11-17T00:42:03.682-08:00God Cannot be Both All-Powerful and All-Loving (Reprise)<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
My thesis is if there is a god, it cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful. It can be one or the other or neither, but it cannot be both.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Let me begin by defining my terms: 1) for my purposes “god” is a variable that can mean whatever people mean when they say god; 2) “all-loving” can include a lot of things and perhaps everyone’s definition might be a little different, but for my logical proof all-loving means at minimum god doesn’t want us to needlessly suffer [God can still be considered all-loving while wanting us to suffer if he deems the suffering necessary]; 3) “all-powerful” means that he can do anything that is not logically contradictory. [A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and it’s denial not-S. In logic, the law of non contradiction is that a statement and its denial can not both be true at the same time. That means that I would still consider him to be all-powerful even though he could not make us both <i>able</i> to experience pain and <i>unable</i> to experience pain, because that would be logically contradictory. (Now, some people are going to try to use that as a loop hole to pass mountains through, so let me be clear that when we talk about what god is able to do, we are not limited by the way things are now - just because there is a strong connection between two concepts (S & T) in the world where we currently reside that connection doesn't necessarily have to hold in all possible worlds god could create. So, my "logically consistent" language only refers to pairings such as S, not-S, and does not exclude pairings such as S, not-T, even though in our current world T might be part of S. My point is, if god is all-powerful, he can make S and not have T as part of it, and that is not a logical contradiction because S is not T, they just have a connection in our current world. If someone claims the relationship between S & T truly is inseparable, then there is a part of my logical argument that addresses that)]; 4) “needless suffering” is unnecessary suffering as opposed to suffering that is needed because it is the only or best way to accomplish some purpose as judged by god.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Now, you may disagree with those definitions and that is fine, but what I am trying to prove through my logical proof is what those definitions are all about. So, another way of saying god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving would be god cannot be both able to do anything that is not logically contradictory and not want us to needlessly suffer.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
1) Either god is capable of producing a world in which every single one of his goals, purposes and intentions can be met perfectly without us suffering, or he isn't. If he can, then proceed to step 2. If he cannot, then he is not all-powerful and in that case I would be correct in my assertion that god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
2) So, an all-powerful god could create a world without human suffering in which all his goals are accomplished, and he could create a world with human suffering in which all of his goals are accomplished. If that were the case then all human suffering would be needless because god has an option available to him in which all of his goals could be accomplished without our suffering. We don’t have to suffer if he can accomplish the same thing without our suffering. So, all human suffering is needless to an all-powerful god. Proceed to step 3.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
3) By definition, if god is all-loving, he would not want us to suffer needlessly. Again, if god were all-powerful then all human suffering is needless. So, if god were all-loving and all-powerful we would live in a world without human suffering in which all of god’s purposes are accomplished. Since we do suffer, we must conclude that if there is an all-powerful god, he cannot be all-loving, and if an all-loving god exists he cannot be all-powerful. If a god exists, it cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
QED</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
And to take it one step further: A) If god is not all-powerful, then who or what was able to set up things such that not even god could change them to perfectly satisfy his purposes without human suffering? At that point, the theist who does not believe in an all-powerful god is in a similar position to the atheist - both wondering about the existence of universal laws that seem to exist without a creator.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
B) If one maintains the belief in an all-powerful god, then one must accept that god created needless suffering when he did not have to, or perhaps suffering was the goal. There is only one goal or purpose that an all-powerful god could have that he could not meet in a world without human suffering: namely, the express purpose of having us suffer. But, if an all-powerful god has our suffering as a goal in and of itself, then not only would he not be all-loving, he would be worse than that, kind of a sadist, and I certainly would not want anything to do with it.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Discussion:</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
An all-powerful god can do anything that is logically consistent. I think many people's hang up is they limit god to only what is possible in the current set-up, but an all-powerful god is not limited to only what is possible in the current realm. A vast array of possibilities open up when you realize how much an all-powerful god can define and create. Attributes are no longer required to be only obtained through a narrow route, and it is still logical because all things are possible.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
An all-powerful god could control all the variables. He can set up whatever rules for learning or growth or knowledge acquisition that he wants. There is no immutable relationship between concepts for him. He can create or modify every concept and every relationship between concepts. If you think suffering is necessary to learn to distinguish bad or harmful behavior from good or helpful behavior, an all-powerful god could set things up such that sunshine teaches people the difference between good and bad behavior.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If suffering has an inherent value, an all-powerful god either gave it that value or could change it, and he could have given something else that value and made the value inherent to it. An all-powerful god can accomplish the value of suffering without the suffering. He could train us solely with rewards and no punishments. He could do anything he wants, and I do mean anything. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If you truly believe that a person simply cannot learn something, say compassion, without suffering, then you do not believe in an all-powerful god, because apparently there are immutable laws that he can not modify or change. That begs the question, who or what created those immutable laws?</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If you want to claim that god is all-powerful, then he could have designed or altered us and designed or altered life such that we could grow without hardships and injustices. And if he could do it (i.e., ensure our growth without suffering), he would not choose the path of suffering if he is all-loving. Remember his ability to accomplish the exact same ends, with or without suffering makes suffering unnecessary. If you can get the same results with or without, then you don't need the suffering. You cannot be all-loving and put people through unnecessary suffering.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Some say god doesn’t cause the suffering, we do. But, we would not even have the ability to cause suffering if suffering did not exist. An all-powerful god could not create the concept or get rid of it if it already existed.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
My proof works for every possible purpose god might have for our suffering. We don’t have to know or even be able to conceive of his purposes, because the variable in the proof “His goals” can take on any value. The nice thing about logic is that it allows one to reach into all possibilities, even possibilities we are unaware of and could not comprehend.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
I am not claiming that the Bible asserts god is all-powerful and all-loving (I don’t know whether it does or not), I am simply saying if a god exists, and it doesn’t matter who’s god, one thing we can know for sure is that it cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. Incidently, Mormonism solves this problem by essentially claiming god is not all-powerful. Now, they say the exact opposite - they say god is all-powerful, but if you read between the lines, you learn that they believe God is subject to law. If he were to lie he’d cease to be god, and he has a god and had to follow commandments and ordinances to become exalted, etc. So, there are things he can’t change, thus he is not truly all-powerful at least in the way I am talking about it in my proof. He also seems to have no ability to change us and the way we learn and what we feel, etc.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
When you love a child who is hurting, what do you want to do? Comfort them; help them feel better; reduce some of their discomfort; end their pain. If god is all-loving, he would want to end our unnecessary pain. One might argue that all pain is necessary and has a purpose even if we don't know what it is. That might be true in the way the current universe is constructed, but an all-powerful god could have constructed any possible universe. He could have constructed a universe in which every good thing that suffering accomplishes in this universe, could be accomplished without suffering. That makes suffering unnecessary because one could get all the same purposes and needs accomplished without it. So why have it? It is unneeded.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Let's use an example for illustration. A 3 year old girl through no fault of her own or that of her parents gets impaled by a tree branch that a strong wind gust threw into her. Her parents rush to her side, the girl is in excruciating pain minute after minute until she dies a few minutes before paramedics arrive. Let's suppose god has a purpose for her suffering. My point is that if he is all-powerful, he could have designed a world in which that exact purpose could have been accomplished without the girl suffering. If you claim that suffering was the only way, then you are saying that god is not all-powerful and you have conceded my point.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Parents can have a purpose for their child's suffering. Parents have learned over the years that in this world we live in, suffering can decrease the likelihood of people repeating the behavior that proceeded the suffering. So, if they want to decrease the likelihood of their child doing something they consider bad, they do something to make the child suffer, and it works to some extent.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Yes, God could have a similar purpose for our suffering. But, this is where the analogy between god and human parents breaks down. Parents can't control the universe, they can't rewire their children's brains to accomplish the same results (namely, a decrease in the likelihood of a behavior being repeated) when exposing the children to the color purple. Parents have no choice but to go with what works in the current world they live in; not so with God. Parents have to make the best choice from the options available to them. An all-powerful god can create whatever options he wants. He can't use the excuse that he wanted to spare us pain but he just couldn't and still have us turn out the way he wanted. He is all-powerful, he could spare us the pain and still have us come out the way he wanted. If god is all-powerful, he could create a world in which every benefit we/he now gets from suffering could be achieved through something other than suffering. So, we would not need suffering to learn not to do some behavior, because in this other world god could create he would have created/altered us and created that world such that parents could use a certain tone and it would work just as well to decrease the likelihood of a child repeating the behavior.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Yes, this presumes a reality that is not contradictory or illogical. If reality is logical and non-contradictory then a god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If one is willing to throw out everything and imagine a reality that is illogical and paradoxical, then one inhabits a reality that truly makes no sense. In that kind of reality, there is little point to talking about anything since nothing can be counted on in a reality that is illogical. In short, we'd have much bigger problems than the nature of god in a reality that is contradictory and paradoxical. Playing that trump card is akin to burning down the whole house just so you don't lose the card game. There would be no point for the scriptures or anyone else to talk about the attributes of god because they would be incomprehensible and unreliable if god and reality doesn’t follow the laws of logic. Arguing that god can be illogical is a major concession that has huge ramifications on anything you think you may understand about god.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Some people say to just trust god. The fact that we have suffering means that god is not all-powerful, or he is not all-loving, or he is neither all-powerful nor all-loving, or that he doesn't exist. If god is all-powerful, but not all-loving, he is sadistic for putting us through pain when he did not have to, or he wanted us to, and thus is not someone I want to trust. If god is all-loving but not all-powerful, there are things beyond his control, and so he might be trustworthy, but only to a point, there may be some promises he can't deliver on and some fates he can't save us from. If god exists but is neither all-powerful nor all-loving, then I am not too inclined to trust him especially since he hasn’t made himself that available to be known. And if he doesn't exist, then I wouldn’t want to trust a figment of my imagination.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
When we humans make decisions, there is always a cost and benefit to the alternatives. Choice 1 may have benefits A, B, and C, but negatives X, Y, and Z. Choice 2 may have some of the same benefits B and C, and maybe a unique benefit as well D, but it also has some of the same negatives X and Y, with the additional negative of Q. When weighing our options, we have to decide does benefit A with cost Z (Choice 1) outweigh benefit D with cost Q (Choice 2). We can't have our cake and eat it, too. This is because we are not all-powerful - we do not control all of the variables. We cannot uncouple benefit D from cost Q. We have to accept that they come in a package deal, because we are not all-powerful.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
You seem to be implying the same is true for an all-powerful deity. That he could have reasons (i, ii, & iii) for choosing Choice 2, even though it contains cost Q, because he can't get benefit D without it, or he doesn't want to choose Choice 1 because he really doesn't want cost Z and benefit A, although very similar to benefit D, isn't exactly the same.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If god is all-powerful, he can create a design that gets him everything that he wants and none of what he doesn't want. If he is all-powerful, he is not limited like us to have to take some negative to get a benefit he wants. He controls all of the variables and all of the linkages between the variables. He doesn't have to settle. He doesn't have to choose the best of the alternatives presented to him because he has complete control over every aspect and implication of every alternative. He doesn't have to give himself a bad choice, cause he can have it all - exactly what he wants! <i>There can </i><i>be</i><i> no reason to have to settle for a plan with suffering in it</i>, because to an all-powerful god, he can create a design with every single thing he wants without suffering. If, in our current world, suffering is the best teacher and there is just no substitute as good as it, it is only because god made it that way. He could have made it that (blank) is the best teacher. There is nothing that suffering can offer us that an all-powerful god could not make something else offer us. <i>So, there can </i><i>be</i><i> no unique advantage to suffering if </i><i>god</i><i> is all-powerful</i>. So, there can be no reason (i, ii, or iii) for him to choose a design with suffering in it, when he could have all that he wanted, every purpose, every need, every reason accomplished equally well in a design with no suffering. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
It simply does not matter that we cannot know what all of those reasons or purposes might be. All that matters is that god knew what purposes he had in mind and that if god is all-powerful, it logically follows that he could accomplish those purposes without suffering.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Some want to make a big deal that just because he could doesn't mean he should. Well, I've already shown that an all-powerful god could not have a reason to choose suffering that he could not overcome, because an all-powerful god does not have to settle as he can have exactly what he wants with no unwanted stuff. If god were all-loving, he would not choose for us to suffer when he doesn't have to, and he doesn't have to if he is all-powerful because there can be no advantage to a design with suffering in it that he cannot completely replicate in a design without suffering in it. If not, then he is not all-powerful.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Now, we live in a world with suffering. So, either god did not have the power to create a design in which he could accomplish all of his purposes without suffering (i.e., he was not all-powerful). Or, he is all-powerful and could have created a design in which he got everything that he wants with nothing he doesn't, but chose to include suffering anyway (i.e., he is not all-loving). But, he absolutely cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful, because we do have needless suffering in the world, and it is needless because if he were all powerful, he could have met ever need, purpose, and reason he has, in a world without suffering.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
My point is if god were all-powerful, he would not be stuck with having to just accept the kind of universe we have now in which people can cause suffering, etc. He could have designed a universe in which suffering does not exist, period. If suffering did not exist, no one or thing could cause suffering. Now, the apologist usually tries to say here, "yeah, god could have created a universe with no suffering but he chose not to because he wanted us to be able to learn/develop love/compassion/ability to discern good from evil/make the right choice/strength/yada yada, and the only way we could get <i>whatever</i> is through suffering".</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
I say to those apologists, you are still thinking too small. If god were all-powerful, he could design a way for us to acquire/develop/learn love/compassion/ability to discern good from evil/make the right choice/strength/yada yada without us having to suffer. If he were all-powerful, he could. If you say, he could not, then you are saying he is not all-powerful, which proves my point.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If you acknowledge that he could do that, but chose not to, then you are admitting god is a prick, because he invented suffering for no good reason except for the sole purpose of having us suffer. Every good reason for suffering, god could have accomplished without suffering, yet he chose to enable us to suffer. Therefore, god cannot be all-loving.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Now, some people want to say _____ isn't ______ if there is no suffering. For example, they'll say compassion isn't compassion if there is no suffering, so god could not enable us to develop compassion in a universe without suffering and since he wanted us to have compassion, he had to create a world with suffering.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
My response, if there is something god is unable to do, then god is not all-powerful. You are thinking too small, accepting these words and concepts like compassion as if they are givens, stuff that god has no choice but to work with. If these words "compassion" and "suffering" really are beyond god's ability to change or redefine, then who created those concepts in the first place. It as if god was born into a space in which these concepts already existed. Surely you don't believe that, right? God is supposed to be the beginning of everything, nothing existed before him right? So, then he created the concept of compassion and suffering and established the relationship between the two. Therefore, if god were all powerful, he could have created other concepts or created the concept of compassion, but declared compassion could only be developed through holding hands or whatever. The apologist says, "well, then it wouldn't be compassion". Who says? If god is inventing the concepts and their relationships, compassion is whatever god says it is.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
Still not convinced? Well, let's talk about god's values. An all-powerful god can choose to value whatever he wants, right? So, he could choose to value a version of compassion that requires suffering or value a version of compassion that doesn't require suffering. If the universe he creates doesn't have suffering, what good is it for us to have the version of compassion that enables us to have empathy for the sufferer? No one is suffering, so there is no need to have the ability to empathize with the sufferer. If he simply wants us to love, be drawn to, have our heart swell, want to be with, another person, he could have easily built a universe in which we could develop that without suffering, and there would be no need for suffering, for every good thing he might accomplish through suffering could be accomplished without suffering if he were an all-powerful god.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px;">
If god is all powerful, he could do anything he darn well pleased. There would be no "have to" for him, such as if you are going to have compassion you "have to" also allow suffering.</div>
<div id="wrchoverdiv" style="display: none;">
<div id="wrccontainer">
<div id="wrcheader">
<div id="wrctitle">
WebRep</div>
</div>
<div class="wrchorizontal">
</div>
<div id="wrccurrentvote">
currentVote</div>
<div class="wrchorizontal">
</div>
<div id="wrcrating">
</div>
<div id="wrcratingtext">
noRating</div>
<div id="wrcweighttext">
noWeight</div>
<div id="wrcflags">
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_shopping">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_social">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_news">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_it">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_corporate">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_pornography">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_violence">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_gambling">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_drugs">
</div>
<div class="wrcicon" id="wrcicon_illegal">
</div>
</div>
<div class="wrchorizontal">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-68134589025194806622014-03-20T21:10:00.001-07:002014-03-20T21:10:09.641-07:00Problems with Pascal's Wager<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Some of what follows comes from: Pascal's Wager Refuted (<a href="http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html</a> ) And some of it comes from me.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
"Pascal's Wager (call it "PW") may be formulated as follows:<br />(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented.<br />(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.<br />(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much.<br />(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists.<br />(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief.<br />(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.<br />Here are some objections to PW:"</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* If God exists and he does eternally torment non-believers, then I don't want anything to do will him. He is evil and heartless, and I would rather be tormented than align with him. Let my pain stand as a testament to his evilness.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
"* According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* Many people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* Stated in a slightly different way, if one picks Jehovah and you should have picked Zeus, then believers in Jehovah are in a heap of trouble. There are an infinite number of possible gods out there. If you pick one and I pick none, our odds are nearly the same given how many chances we have of being wrong. And if you believe in all gods, and there is only one, he may be jealous and torment you for it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
"* To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* PW offers a false dichotomy, that there are only these two possibilities. It might be that God does exist and doesn't care whether or not you believe in him, but rewards good behavior regardless, or rewards critical thinking and skepticism. Then it would be the non-skeptics that miss out on rewards.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The worst thing that can happen to a believer who is wrong is to find out he served the wrong god, and have the real god torture him forever because he is a jealous god and doesn't like you serving the wrong god.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
* If a god exists and is any good at all, he will not condemn people who do not believe in him.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
If there is a god that sends non-believers to hell, I want nothing to do with a god like that. I'd never worship a god that does that. So, if hell gets me away from that monster, to hell I'll go.</div>
Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-69936810001591765482012-11-03T16:07:00.000-07:002012-11-03T16:07:05.100-07:00USA "not founded on Christian principles" - John Adams"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."— George Washington<br />
<br />
"The United States Constitutional Convention, except for three or four
persons, thought prayers unnecessary."— Benjamin Franklin <br />
<br />
"This nation of ours was not founded on Christian principles."— John Adams <br />
<br />
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise."— James Madison, letter to William Bradford,
1771 <br />
<br />
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion;..." ~Treaty of Tripoli 1796 Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-22613625992979431082012-09-28T18:06:00.002-07:002013-07-27T15:53:58.216-07:00Book of Abraham Papyri FragmentsThese scanned images come from the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larsen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqMsSW3jzJScTcFi5YH-iRwCTmUj3_rjE5_kZ2LIIpsDcZ3r_mOY5j1-3iLEpe8lxSeQvDq5-r06UT35dhJejvDywp1W8iWa7d745mZ5z5s2DN-XemyY_EtD2WhQNTiaT2qmZF/s1600/Scroll+pg1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqMsSW3jzJScTcFi5YH-iRwCTmUj3_rjE5_kZ2LIIpsDcZ3r_mOY5j1-3iLEpe8lxSeQvDq5-r06UT35dhJejvDywp1W8iWa7d745mZ5z5s2DN-XemyY_EtD2WhQNTiaT2qmZF/s320/Scroll+pg1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGVAjGv5dW9I7WvlyT2AecX8LhAAFSjL_jEACTTAjpROaI7yuXlwpqN_2e3-BiYdZ2sQxHZn4zA8g8c6cDw1MNV7gFOL1KhIQXk5jtwTooNTKhPPF85iTPLQ0cfMRrw1ebL0Y0/s1600/Scroll+pg2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGVAjGv5dW9I7WvlyT2AecX8LhAAFSjL_jEACTTAjpROaI7yuXlwpqN_2e3-BiYdZ2sQxHZn4zA8g8c6cDw1MNV7gFOL1KhIQXk5jtwTooNTKhPPF85iTPLQ0cfMRrw1ebL0Y0/s320/Scroll+pg2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUpcEifRH4ASCHFdk1wKdxfbL3zOfuBddxCS_deIVBqD5ZVZI5f3AEgQv6hJasoGiA2WRAbKoJZBHBWB5RjMkURjJ_CjIV-1I0gVsrFg9518QTXYDcI9_bdtnFfSlarAOkMouw/s1600/Scroll+pg3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUpcEifRH4ASCHFdk1wKdxfbL3zOfuBddxCS_deIVBqD5ZVZI5f3AEgQv6hJasoGiA2WRAbKoJZBHBWB5RjMkURjJ_CjIV-1I0gVsrFg9518QTXYDcI9_bdtnFfSlarAOkMouw/s320/Scroll+pg3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcgc_bgGZjoTn7uK07AYC88zuAQtmJXRkek8IogIRU1ttdmL6wdCrMAM9bpsXXbvZPFi6-gOfTQcFwM_cVGaz4QKe25uVt36fiXBPcKnNR9L3DZW6ah3y-7V_dUhhXrY2xMUYM/s1600/Scroll+pg4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcgc_bgGZjoTn7uK07AYC88zuAQtmJXRkek8IogIRU1ttdmL6wdCrMAM9bpsXXbvZPFi6-gOfTQcFwM_cVGaz4QKe25uVt36fiXBPcKnNR9L3DZW6ah3y-7V_dUhhXrY2xMUYM/s320/Scroll+pg4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNHodEq-mvhoXMEkEoS-kH8y3P8NkIrSqag98WY6s2Bb8c89u7H6rSz3dVqgjLcnIPILeHHr3WpexoFLOTLqdLS2-SCz9k663_oDQ6-pXVIcB_xTEEFOycRGp4xybcvRgVv14/s1600/Scroll+pg5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNHodEq-mvhoXMEkEoS-kH8y3P8NkIrSqag98WY6s2Bb8c89u7H6rSz3dVqgjLcnIPILeHHr3WpexoFLOTLqdLS2-SCz9k663_oDQ6-pXVIcB_xTEEFOycRGp4xybcvRgVv14/s320/Scroll+pg5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgEo9XFnAN-_vMIsGMsevVzWqyc1nah_-jHP4Wa2WK0TnEU0i799pOex9YtV4N5ieYpTos5xNtSey_guoGsjqC6RLv5hg-EUvjGDg3kb4GS_DJ8pH8znBImFcOGCi6KqTxSIcp/s1600/Scroll+pg6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgEo9XFnAN-_vMIsGMsevVzWqyc1nah_-jHP4Wa2WK0TnEU0i799pOex9YtV4N5ieYpTos5xNtSey_guoGsjqC6RLv5hg-EUvjGDg3kb4GS_DJ8pH8znBImFcOGCi6KqTxSIcp/s320/Scroll+pg6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD-fI5kkouji0JiOiRDc9tf1q7aAvcqURSMIJmR5zpFPPoSTzsPRwnzlm0c-y6JpgTVP9uoJYLWgu1jgJmp2ileVtco7tyOylggi_wZgR0TBJaFIYkSMb8J1PVbxDXbe4megu_/s1600/Scroll+pg7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD-fI5kkouji0JiOiRDc9tf1q7aAvcqURSMIJmR5zpFPPoSTzsPRwnzlm0c-y6JpgTVP9uoJYLWgu1jgJmp2ileVtco7tyOylggi_wZgR0TBJaFIYkSMb8J1PVbxDXbe4megu_/s320/Scroll+pg7.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>
<br />Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-34774353544115449122010-10-26T17:05:00.000-07:002010-10-26T17:06:47.142-07:00How atheism has helped meIn church on Sunday (oh, I should mention that I am talking about my UU church [I haven't been a Mormon for over 4 years]), the sermon got me thinking about how I don't need to be comforted so much anymore. It seems like when I was a believing Mormon, I was so often struggling (trying to feel closer to the Lord, trying to become more valiant and faithful, more assurance from God that he was pleased with me, trying to understand the meaning of my adversities, or understand why God was testing me in a certain way or what he was trying to teach me, wondering why God wasn't helping me more despite me doing all that I could to qualify for his help, struggling with being stretched so thin by all my callings and responsibilities, etc). Due to all my struggling, I was so often delving into the depths of my soul to find comfort (and answers). I prayed so sincerely and often to my Father in Heaven. Occasionally, I would feel close to Him, feel hope through Him and comforted by Him. But, those were but moments in a sea of struggling as outlined above.<br /><br />When I first quit believing in god, I occasionally missed my "sky daddy", missed the illusion that someone was up there that cared about me and my life and was powerful enough to help, if he would. But, I would remind myself that it had always been just an illusion, that he had never been there even when I was a believer. I had found a way to make it through the hard times then without his help, so I could make it through now without his help as I always had, except this time believing he isn't there.<br /><br />But, now, I find that I don't struggle very often at all anymore. I don't need to delve into the depths of my being that much anymore. I no longer struggle to feel closer to a Lord because I don't believe he exists anyway. I am no longer trying to become more valiant or faithful. I am no longer seeking the assurance that a god is pleased with me. I no longer try to understand the meaning or purpose of my tough times, because I don't believe there is any purpose or meaning to them. They just are what they are, and I just have to deal with them. Life makes so much more sense when one is no longer searching for divine meaning in them. And it is a relief. There is no lesson God wants me to learn because in all likelihood there is no god. I don't have to wonder why a loving god isn't helping me out. I am no longer stretched too thin by church callings and responsibilities because I am not automatically obligated to serve the church and magnify my priesthood. I get to choose how involved I want to be with no guilt for not being totally active and involved.<br /><br />It is a huge relief to no longer bear the weight of all that stuff. I didn't even realize how heavy all that was to carry until I took it off. I feel a lot better because of it. I still enjoy feeling what I formerly called the "Spirit". I have gotten to the point where I can pretty much produce those feelings on demand whenever I want to, but I find I don't need to comfort myself that often anymore. Atheism has been good for me and my wife. I understand that it may not be for everyone, but it really works well for us.<br /><br />I am not atheist because it works for me. I am atheist because I believe that it is very unlikely that a god exists. The fact that it works for me is just a pleasant side-effect.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-51954910558447042512010-08-28T04:11:00.000-07:002010-08-28T04:16:17.191-07:00Where I am politicallyI took a test to measure where I am politically. http://www.politicalcompass.org/<br /><br />Your political compass<br />Economic Left/Right: -3.88 (Left leaning on economic issues)<br />Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82 (Left leaning on social issues)<br /><br />I line up with the Dali Lama and close to Ghandi.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-61590328305734892322010-05-09T07:10:00.000-07:002010-05-09T07:15:31.643-07:00Did Brigham Young Teach that Adam is the Biological Father of Jesus?Here follows Brigham Young's early "lecture at the veil," excerpted from Elder Nuttall's Journal:<br /><br />In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it. these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. We were once acquainited [acquainted] with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child. it is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species. but not the Woman. she conceives the seed but she does not produce it. consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews. but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that was nesesary that they might be together that man might be. the woman was found in trans-gression not the Man- Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks- this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood<br /><br /> [Four lines without any writing on them.]<br /><br />Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.<br />I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me-<br /><br />(Source: Journal of L. John Nuttall; BYU Special Collections; Pres. Brigham Young; delivered in St. George; Wed., Feb. 7, 1877. This was the first draft of the Lecture at the Veil. Brother L. John Nuttall was the private secretary to President Brigham Young until his (Brigham's) death in 1877. He then became the private secretary to President John Taylor (1879-1887) and again to President Wilford Woodruff (1887-1892)<br /><br /> "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do...When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. </p> <p> </p> <p> It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. </p> <p> </p> <p> Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. </p> <p> </p> <p> Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (<a href="http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html"><em>Journal of Discourses</em> 1:50-51</a>). </p> <p> </p> <p> <a href="http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-adam-god.html" target="_blank">Other quotes </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> <a href="http://www.mormonwiki.org/Adam-God" target="_blank">Mormonwiki<br /></a></p><p> This thread is kind of a trial run to see what responses I get and how many quotes are necessary to establish my point. Eventually, I will rewrite this post as a double bind for TBM's. BY taught that one must believe the Adam-God doctrine or be damned. It was taught in conference and in the lecture at the veil by the then president and prophet of the church. If that ain't doctrine, then Mormons are pretty much free to question anything any prophet says no matter what the setting (which is what I want). </p> <p> </p> <p> However, if then do resign themselves to believing it, then I can show how the later prophets declared it to be false doctrine and did not believe it and warned members against teaching it. So, if you believe Brigham then the later prophets must be damned and have apostacized from the truth. If the later prophets are right, then Brigham was teaching false doctrine, even in the temple, which means prophets can lead the people astray, which means the modern prophets might also lead us astray. Which means we are free to question them as well (which is what I want). </p> <p> </p> <p> Policies, practices, even commandments can change, but doctrines are truths as they really are, were and will be, and as such can not change. Once a TBM is free to think for themselves and give themselves permission to view prophetic teachings with a skeptical eye, then they will be able to learn the truth about the church. </p> <p> </p> <p> The Adam-God doctrine is unique in this ability to undermine absolute trust in the prophet's teachings. </p><p> </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-43902531552273306862009-12-30T04:44:00.000-08:002009-12-30T04:53:16.279-08:00We evolved the mechanisms of magical thinkingPsychology Today has a great article on magical thinking that I think most skeptics would enjoy. Have a look: <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/magical-thinking">http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/magical-thinking</a><br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/magical-thinking" title="Psychology Today looks at Magical Thinking" class="pt-basics-link">Magical thinking</a> springs up everywhere. Some irrational beliefs (Santa Claus?) are passed on to us. But others we find on our own. Survival requires recognizing patterns—night follows day, berries that color will make you ill. And because missing the obvious often hurts more than seeing the imaginary, our skills at inferring connections are overtuned. No one told Wade Boggs that eating chicken before every single game would help his batting average; he decided that on his own, and no one can argue with his success. We look for patterns because we hate surprises and because we love being in control.</blockquote>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-81195292360106864282009-11-14T20:24:00.001-08:002009-11-14T20:24:22.856-08:00Man's search for meaning<p> It wasn't long after I came to believe the Church wasn't true, that I came to believe that in all likelihood, there isn't a god either. The cosmos then lacked the ability to give purpose or meaning. It did not create all that existed for a reason nor with intent. Creation came about by mindless matter/energy simply carrying out the soulless laws of nature. </p> <p> </p> <p>At first blush, that makes the universe a rather emotionally cold and scary place because no powerful essence is looking out for you. You face the raw elements alone and if something tragic happens no Thing will notice, care, or rescue. The awareness of this and bold confrontation of this is what constitutes existential angst. Many people are so uncomfortable with the thought, that they will not allow their minds to accept or even entertain it. "There must be universal meaning," they protest with nothing to support their declaration other than their own discomfort. </p> <p> </p> <p>But, why this discomfort? Why this angst? Must it have come from a god; a creator to persuade us He is there? If not, then why or how did nature put it there through evolution? Why does it seem that most animals and young human children never have to confront this angst? Why is it only the burden of adult homo sapiens? Why can't why be as blissfully unaware or unconcerned with the meaning of life? Maybe we need to become unconcerned with it and simply live as others do. </p> <p> </p> <p>Is this dissatisfaction with meaning a mere side effect of other mental abilities which gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage? I think so. One of our great abilities is to problem solve. When we solve problems trace back the steps to determine cause and effect of how the problem situation happened. Then as we attempt to come up with solutions, we play out in our minds how what we do might start a chain reaction to our desired end result according to what we know about how things work. We sense a disparity between what is and what we want. Then we give purpose to actions we take and tools we use. Their purpose is to make contributions to help us reach our desired goal. For example, we give a twig purpose when we use it as a tool to get to the termites in a stump. The twig has meaning for us as a termite getting tool. </p> <p> </p> <p>I believe we humans began to see all things around us as potential tools to help us reach our desired ends. Even other people began to have meaning in our lives when we saw that they could help us get what we want. And then thanks to an ability that does not fully mature until our teen years, we are able to reflect on our selves and see ourselves as objects in the world. Once we can do that, we begin to wonder what purpose we serve and to whom are we a tool. That leads us to the next question, is all of creation a tool in the eyes of a being that could manipulate us all. </p> <p> </p> <p>Now, organisms have a desire to conserve energy. It gives us an evolutionary advantage as it traditionally took a lot of calories to catch and consume calories, so it is best if you hold onto your calories until you need them to gather additional calories. So, we are lazy. If there is not a purpose behind an action (i.e., shelter, food, sex, etc), then our bodies slow us down and demotivate us. One why our bodies get us to slow down and be demotivated is through depression. When depressed our bodies are telling us whatever we are doing is not working, slow down, think it through, and come up with a better approach or regoal, but you have been wasting energy going down that path. We have learned to look for a purpose for doing something before you do it. If we can't find a purpose, we say, "What's the point?" and then don't bother. </p> <p> </p> <p>So, let's put it all together. We aquired the ability through evolution to give meaning and purpose to things. We also aquired the ability to see ourselves as objects and wonder whether someone or something might have meaning or purpose for us. We need a reason to act, or else we want to conserve energy. Although we can see the functional reasons were do many survival tasks, we may start to wonder whether survival itself is worth the effort. What's the point? </p> <p> </p> <p> (I have run out of time to finish. I'll post more later.) </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-85907483974198735582009-11-14T20:20:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:22:53.453-08:00My acceptance of no life after death<p>Bonogold wrote: </p><blockquote>Well, as my belief in TSCC disintegrated, so did my belief in God. Now there's nothing for me to fall back on when I need comfort from the terrible things I see in the world. I've suddenly become overly emotional, even crying at stupid little things - almost like some kind of separation anxiety. Then a colleague/friend died unexpectedly this week, and I don't know how to cope with all of this. Life seems cruel and pointless. It's one thing to never have believed in God, but it's quite another thing to have one view of existence/the universe for your whole life and turn it upside down all at once. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advice? My life isn't in shambles. I'm actually much happier now in all areas except this one. I don't spend most of my time thinking about these things. It's just that when they do come up, I can't find the comfort I used to find - and I really, really miss that. It's the only reason I ever wish I could believe again. </blockquote> <p></p><p>I think I can relate. I felt the way you did when I first lost belief in the church and god over 3 years ago. Frankly, I've just come to accept it (kind of like accepting the death of a loved one). Time dulls the pain of the injustice of having no day of reckoning. I believe the scales of justice are never balanced and that is just the way it is. I don't believe in karma or an afterlife. </p> <p> </p> <p> Olivia Newton-John was a guest judge on American Idol a few years ago and she wore a shirt that had a slogan which has since become a favorite of mine. The shirt said, "It is what it is". I try to simply accept what is most likely reality. In a lot of ways I have given up the concept of justice and instead focus on consequences that foster pro-social changes in behavior. I reject the notion that "the scales" can really be balanced anyway regardless of what any judge - human or divine - could do to the offender. The important thing is to try to reduce the likelihood of the offending behavior happening again through consequences, therapy, social skills training, etc. Natural death serves a purpose in that it ultimately prevents a person from ever doing harm again even if the person never has to account for their wrongdoing. </p> <p> </p> <p>Basically, I am ok with things being what they are. Most of us during childhood came to accept that life isn't fair. Accepting that there in all likelihood is no final day of reckoning is just one step beyond that. I think we can learn to accept that, too. </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-88463709826208572592009-11-14T20:16:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:17:04.348-08:00Importance of Informed Consent in RitualsI was part of the "Order of the Arrow" in Scouts growing up and also went through the Mormon temple without knowing in advance what would happen. <p> </p> <p>I don't like uninformed consent. It is disorienting and scary to not know what is going on or what will happen next or what limits there are to the experience. It puts participants in a psychologically vulnerable state in which they feel pressured to go along and do things they probably would not had they been informed ahead of time. Sure, any participant is free to leave or opt out, just like during a Mormon endowment, but the participant feels intense psychological pressure to conform (and none of the people in charge even have to make a threat). The experience just takes advantage of normal social pressure to conform. </p> <p> </p> <p>But, after a person does conform, cognitive dissonance kicks in and their minds make them believe that they actually wanted to do it because that is the only reason they can think of for why they did it.Had they been threatened, then they would have that excuse for why they complied, but in the absence of threats, they can't understand why they wouldparticipate in such a humiliating ritual, and so their mind assumes then that they did it because they wanted to. And the more uncomfortable it was, the more they convince themselves they really like it. This is classic cognitive dissonance theory. </p> <p> </p> <p> These are prime manipulation techniques whether the members putting on the ceremony consciously understand that or not. </p> <p> </p> <p>Now, as a side note, people go into haunted houses not knowing what to expect, but they do expect the experience will be kept within certain boundaries. They expect to be startled and see gruesome things, but they expect that no real violence will occur. With secret rituals, the initiate has no idea what boundaries exist for the experience. Participants in psychological experiments know that some review board not affiliated with the researchers had to approve the protocol. But, there is no oversight of secret rituals. </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-35102855187626131432009-11-14T20:14:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:15:12.096-08:00Existential Angst<p> Existential angst, even reaching to the level of depression, is common among deep thinkers. So, common, that there is even a great literary movement that goes by the name of existentialism with authors like Camus, and works like "Waiting for Godot" and "Rosencrats and Guildenstern are Dead". Perhaps it may give consolation to some that they are not alone in walking this path, for many have struggled with these same issues before them. </p> <p> </p> <p>Sometimes it is useful to catergorize depression into two types: organic and situational. Organic depression would be caused by severe neuro-chemical implances and often result in psychomotor retardation, loss of energy nearly everyday for an extended period of time, and multiple depressive episodes throughout one's life. Situational depression, on the other hand, may only occur a few times within a person's lifetime, and usually accompany a series of life events (e.g., failures in an important life domain, repeated rejection and loneliness, a seemingly insurmountable problem, etc). Situational depression serves a purpose, it is to inform us that whatever we have been doing isn't working for us, and that we should slow down and re-prioritize our life and re-orient ourselves. Unlike frustration, which simply suggests that we should find another route to our goal; depression suggests that we perhaps give up on that goal and find another way to meet the underlying need our old goal was supposed to meet. </p> <p> </p> <p>For example, I once knew a man who believed the only way he could feel successful and competent was to be a great salesman. The only problem was, he sucked at being a salesman. His failures led to frustruation and discouragement, but he was able to avoid depression as long as he could come up with a new pathway to use to approach his goal of being a great salesman. New pathways included: reading self-help books, attending seminars, talking to successful salesmen for advice, selling different products, trying new ways to attract customers, etc. But, when he had finally exhausted all the pathways he could think of and still experienced failure, he fell into a deep depression. The thing that finally freed him of his depression was realizing that he did not have to be a great salesman (goal) to feel successful and competent (underlying need). He could feel successful and competent by being a great employee and providing for his family with a steady paycheck. So, he re-goaled and found a new way to meet his underlying needs. </p> <p> </p> <p>Philsopher King: Your brother had the goal to one day have an eternal family and become a god, etc. His principle pathway to that goal was to be a good Mormon and do all the things good Mormons do. That goal is no longer attainable now that he knows it doesn't exist. There are no more pathways to that goal, so he naturally has become depressed. If he were my client, I'd have him first search for his underlying emotional needs. What does he most crave? To feel: wanted, appreciated, valued, understood, needed, cared for, cared about, important, competent, safe, prepared, worthy, etc? Once he has identified that, I'd help him brainstorm ways to get that need satisfied. All of our emotional needs can be satisfied by either ourselves or by other people. And if it is by other people, there are things we can do to elicit the responses we need from other people. </p> <p> </p> <p>I'll end by sharing how I found my way out of existential angst. I realized that although my existence has no eternal or cosmic meaning or significance, my existence could have meaning and significance locally, in space and time to the people around me whose lives I touch and influence. My life matters to my wife and kids. If I committed suicide, it would deeply sadden them and disadvantage them in their lives. And I choose to care about their feelings. And although, they, like me, are nothing more than a contained chemical reaction and all the feelings they have are nothing more than a chemical reaction playing itself out, I am a homo sapien and I am content to do what homo sapiens do, care about the feelings of other homo sapiens, even while knowing my "caring" is just a chemical reaction itself. My wife and kids give my life meaning, locally in space and time, no matter how ephemeral. The human mind is the only thing capable of giving meaning and it is also the only thing that craves it. So, I get my need for meaning fulfilled bythe only humans I'll ever know (my contemporaries). It would be convienient to be like the deer who have no need for meaning and blissfully live their lives without it. But, I am a human, so I will do what humans do: live my life, satisfy my needs, experience my emotions, and enjoy my fellow humans. </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-29444567232621530322009-11-14T20:09:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:13:03.078-08:00Did I consider the possibility Holland might be right?Someone asked, <blockquote>Did any of you stop to consider that maybe Jeffery Holland was right and we are among those "who just wished to exit the church" who have to spend the rest of our lives "crawling around, over, or under the Book of Mormon" because it is something that even us apostates can't deny is true?<br /><br /><br /><br />We're all just being decieved by Satan and we've given up our eternal exaltation and turned our backs on the truth and the faith of our Fathers, for what? </blockquote><br /><br />Holland is right that we don't know how the Book of Mormon was written. There is no clear consensus on the most likely scenario as to how the Book of Mormon was likely created. And there are many failed theories.<br /><br /><br /><br />But, for me it does not matter who or how the book was written. It is enough for me to know that it could not be of ancient American origin. And if it is not ancient American in origin as it claims and as it has to be for the Church to be true, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter if it was written by Spalding and Rigdon or Smith.<br /><br /><br /><br />I can't answer why Hyrum quoted from the Book of Mormon before his death or why Joseph testified of it to the guards. I have my theories, but I don't know. But, me not knowing the motivations of Joseph and Hyrum should not in itself negate what I already know through hard physical evidence.<br /><br /><br /><br />The Book of Abraham was the smoking gun for me. It proves Joseph was a fraud and that he was deceitful while producing so-called scripture. The Book of Mormon has so many challenges to its authenticity, there is no question that it was written around the early 1800's in America, not 600BC to 400AD.<br /><br /><br /><br />In short knowing the mind of Joseph is not necessary in determining whether the Book of Mormon is a fraud.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-28755337195903528672009-11-14T20:05:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:08:35.479-08:00Happiness is no longer my goalI have been having a number of conversations with friends and co-workers lately which have helped me articulate my present views.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As Mormons we were taught that "Men are that they might have joy" and that happiness was the end of our existence and the purpose for which we were created. Since leaving Mormonism and belief in god altogether, I have familiarized myself with a fair number of philosophies of life that are out there.<br /><br /> <br /><br />One great objective in Budhism is to give up attachment and desire, for by so doing one can eliminate suffering. I believe that that works (if one gives up attachment, one will eliminate the personal experience of suffering), but I fundamentally reject the notion that getting rid of personal suffering is good or should be a goal. I don't want to give up desire or attachment, because they are the only way I can feel true closeness and intimacy. I will gladly suffer the risk of pain and loss so that I can enjoy interpersonal warmth and love. Suffering is not all that bad. I have no phobia for pain. It is not that I want more pain in my life, but I accept it as part of life and am willing to experience it if it leaves me open to truly live. <br /><br /> <br /><br />I also find no appeal in the waves of new age movements that have lately come along such as "The Secret" and the works of Tolle. Tolle could be right in his fundamental approach; there is certainly no way to know for sure (I think there is some benefit in at least occasionally attempting to give up one's sense of self), but fundamentally I believe we are biological creatures, and our mental functions and experiences are born of the hardware of our neural circuits and the "software" we pick up from the environment."The Secret" I find just wrong on the face of it. Thinking good thoughts doesn't metaphysically make things happen.<br /><br /> <br /><br />There are a whole host of other religions and philosophies that tell us that we should make more of ourselves - that we should through meditation transcend ourselves and be more/better than the typical human. There is this emphasis that we should be doing more, accomplishing more, growing more, there is so much personal development that we need to get done before we die, we must prepare for whatever comes after death, etc. UGGGHHH & ICCCKKK!<br /><br /> <br /><br />A co-worker asked me the other day how I might live my life differently if I knew I only had two years left to live. He said that would put an urgency in him and rattled off a number of things he would do or attempt to accomplish and how he would spend his time. I thought for a moment and realized I wouldn't do anything different. I am living exactly how I want to at the present time. My immediate family is my main reason for living and I am spending time with them, and if I die, I die. So what? I don't feel that there is anything for me to accomplish, anything I must do or expectation that I must meet.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As far as the Universe is concerned, nothing is expected of me. In a few hundred years my existence will be completely forgotten (if not before then), and in a few billion years, nothing will be left of the organisms that once inhabited the planet earth. The universe really doesn't care if we exist or not, and certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I am content to be a human being, a homo sapien. I do what homo sapiens do. Birch trees do what birch trees do; robins do what robins do; and I do what homo sapiens do. Nothing at the cosmic level is expected of the birch, the robin, and nothing is expected of me. I don't have to be anything or become anything; and I don't have to be happy or reach some meditative state of being (which I think is just a psychological trick anyway - it is not like we are really transcending our brains - our brains are making the experience).<br /><br /> <br /><br />For me, it is relieving to not have anything I have to strive for at the cosmic level. Now, I know I do have expectations for me locally in space and time. My contemporaries expect me to behave a certain way (pro-socially) and provide for myself and family (physically, emotionally, socially, etc). As a human I have needs and wants that I desire to have fulfilled and I work towards satisfying them. I have dreams and goals, but they are my dreams and goals that come with no external pressure to measure up. They weren't goals that were given to me by a deity, pretentious prophet, cosmic entity, or some new age guru who has a misguided confidence that they have THE powerful answer to the purpose of life.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I don't need to be happy; I am content to just be what I am - a human being. I am happy sometimes. I have given myself permission to feel a wide range of emotions, so sometimes I feel angry, sometimes I feel peace, sometimes I feel discouraged, sometimes I feel hopeful, sometimes I feel frustrated, sometimes I experience flow, and on and on.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now for a tangent. I think emotions are a natural and normal part of being a homo sapien. I don't feel that it is bad or evil or that one is sinning if one experiences a negative emotion. I believe each of the various emotions serve a purpose and gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. Most serve to draw our attention to something that needs to be addressed for our well-being. Sometimes, we get stuck in an emotion (like depression or anger) or experience an emotion when the situation doesn't really call for it (an intense phobia of germs). In these cases the emotions may be causing us problems in our lives, and we need psychological help to work through what needs to be taken care of or retrain our emotions to respond differently. I am a masters level psychologist and I do that kind of work.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The FLDS have a saying that they tell the women and girls among them - "Stay sweet" - meaning keep a smile on your face and a cheery disposition and stuff all negative emotions. To most of us that is obviously unhealthy. But, many religions and movements to a lesser extent promote that same message: happiness is the goal and if you are not happy you are not as developed, matured, strong as, good as, enlightened as, accomplished as you should or could be. The message is you need to become like the Buddha, the saints, the gurus, the masters, the transcendent ones, etc. They say, "these people have reached a level of peace, a spiritual plane, an enlightenment that you need to obtain. They have set the example for all to follow." I reject that. Sure it is enjoyable to reach those altered states, as I have done before and do on occasion. But, those states are just another part of the human experience and do not need to be the standard by which everything else is judged.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Look, I acknowledge that for some people, living their lives with those aspirations works for them. I celebrate their humanity and as a good friend support them. I am just saying that for me, I no longer feel expectations from the cosmos or a god. I no longer use happiness as a milestone to mark whether I am measuring up anymore, or being all that I could or should be. I don't look up to transcendental states of consciousness with any special awe or high regard.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-8731815916929304722009-11-14T20:03:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:04:18.172-08:00I am sometimes asked are Mormons Christian?I've heard arguments both for the position that Mormons are Christian and for the position that Mormons aren't Christian. I've read the quotes by Hinckley and others that usually get trotted out in such discussions.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The question really only seems relevant to two groups of people: 1) those who believe Christianity is the only true religion so it really matters if one is a ChristianTM or not; and 2) Mormons who don't want to be thought of as "less than" because they are not thought of as part of the Christian majority. The question might also be relevant to anthropologists/socialogists.<br /><br /> <br /><br />To the anthropologist, when considering all of the different religions that have and do exist (Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc), Mormonism clearly is a product of and fits in the camp of Christianity. Mormonism considers the Bible holy scripture and the word of God and features Christ as a god to be worshipped. Clearly, Mormonism has some unique theology and rituals and as such should not be catergorized within the Roman Catholics, or the Protestants, or the Armenians, Coptic Church, or Eastern Orthodox movements.But, Mormonism still fits in the larger umbrella of Christianity nonetheless.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now, to many Protestants, those differences in theology in Mormonism are all so important. Since Mormonism doesn't fit into their rather overly strict definition of what a Christian must believe, many Protestants don't consider Mormons Christian. But, many people reject the Protestant definition of Christianity as THE definition of Christianity.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Some Mormon leaders, who wanted to emphasize that Mormonism is different/better than the predominant form of Christianity, have said things that one could interpret as them claiming they are not part of what they believe is the corrupt and apostacized Christian movement. But, most, if not all, would claim that they are the true followers of Christ and therefore the true Christians.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Many modern Mormons consider themselves Christian as they look to Christ as their Savior, Lord, and as the Son of God.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Personally, in a lot of ways, I just don't care. I don't believe either Mormonism or Christianity is true (or any other religion). To me, it is like arguing whether the Pharoah Amenhotep's brand of theology (monotheism) can be classified as part of the ancient Egyptian religion which believed in many gods, or not.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I sometimes think we get too caught up in trying to categorize things as opposed to just appreciating the differences and the similarities for what they are.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-30237869088725288062009-11-14T20:01:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:02:34.852-08:00Would I have had a crises of faith had I not been Mormon?I have often said that I am glad I grew up Mormon, else I might never have figured out that Christianity and the theology in the Bible is not true.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I don't know that I would have investigated the true history of Biblical theology if I had not first had to investigate the true history of the Book of Abraham.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I don't know that I would have ever questioned what I believed were promptings from God or that I communicated with God in my prayers, if I had not first had to question the "promptings I had received from God" that Mormonism was true.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I might have never questioned divine miracles, if I had not had to question priesthood healings.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I might have never had second thoughts about the intense love I felt from God, if I had not learned that those same feelings indicate nothing and are almost certainly created by our own brains.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Mormonism has proven to be a great stepping stone to teach me to investigate thoroughly and critically religion. I am happy with where I am now, and I am not sure I would have gotten here had I not been raised Mormon.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-2066771151914779572009-11-14T19:56:00.000-08:002009-11-14T20:01:02.086-08:00How I stopped thinking about godSomeone who no longer believes in god wrote this:<br /><blockquote><p> In my logical brain I just can't accept a higher power. But when I'm not sitting here thinking about it, random thoughts will come to me subconsciencely about God. Then I have to stop and remind myself that I don't believe in that anymore. </p> <p> </p> <p> How can I start getting my subconscience to think the way my logic brain does?<br /></blockquote><br />I responded by saying: I think it was time more than anything else. I was a habitual pray-er when I believed. So, after I stopped believing, I would occasionally catch myself kneeling before my bed at night or folding my arms and bowing my head before meals. I would remind myself that I don't believe in that anymore. It has been years since I have even thought about praying. In fact, it is so natural not to pray now, I often start eating at my in-laws house when the food is served before the prayer (not intentionally, I would wait out of respect for them but I forget).Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-40927681299593085002009-11-14T19:51:00.000-08:002009-11-14T19:54:37.582-08:00Do souls exist?A friend of mine named peter_mary had this to say when someone asked if we thought souls exist. Below is what he said and then how I responded.<br /><blockquote> <strong><br />peter_mary:</strong><br />I tend to think I don't have a soul (this comes as HUGE suprise to everyone I've offended on my way to Outer Darkness...) <p> </p> <p> But then, I suppose it's how you define "soul." If we define "soul" as that sense of "self" that allows us to diferentiate ourselves from our surroundings, and that makes us truly unique in the spectrum of human beings, and that retains that sense of unique "selfness" (selfiness?) throughout the course of our lives, then yeah--I have a soul. </p> <p> </p> <p> But in no way do I consider that soul to be differentiated from ME. In other words, there is no distinction between my body (the fleshy stuff) and my soul (the "selfy stuff). I believe that my sense of self resides in my brain, and that were my brain to be damaged (contrary to popular belief, it has NOT been damaged to date....that I know of) my sense of self could change radially and unalterably. </p> <p> </p> <p> Furthermore, when I exhale my last breath, and the electrochemical processes in my body shut down, I believe that sense of self will simply cease. I see it as an emergent phenomenon of the manner in which the brain functions, serving us well (as evidenced by the ridiculous degree to which humans have moved into virtually every niche known to mother nature.) Subsequently, when the brain ceases to produce the electrochemical impulses, so, too, do all the associated emergent phenomenon cease. </p> <p> </p> <p> Strangely, that doesn't bother me in the least. </p> <p> </p> <p> By the way, I think "selfiness" is a most excellent made-up word. <img src="http://www.postmormon.org/javascript/tiny_mce_2_1_2/plugins/emotions_2/images/smiley17.gif" border="0" /> </p> </blockquote> <p> Ditto! I could not have expressed my opinion on this subject better than peter mary just did for me. Thank you! </p> <p> </p> <p> I believed in a soul before I delved into graduate studies in psychology. Every "function" we imagine a soul to do is done by the biological brain, from personality, to intelligence, to sense of self, to memory, to processing sensatory input, to whatever. The most convincing evidence of that is the loss ofspecific mental functions due tolocalized brain damage. If we do have a soul, it seems incapable of compensating for the loss of function from brain damage. </p> <p> </p> <p>I researched Near-death experiences and have become convinced that there is no evidence there of a soul. And I dismiss outright reincarnation stories. </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-1312858876422876222009-11-14T19:46:00.000-08:002009-11-14T19:50:39.796-08:00It is not bad if a woman is sexy<p> Although a man, I consider myself a feminist. I am for women and for making opportunities for women to be who and what they want to be. I am also for men and for people of all races, and people of all sexual orientations and sexual identities. I am a humanist and want all humans to have opportunities to be who and what they want to be, provided they don't hurt others. </p> <p> </p> <p>My morality is simple: it is not good to hurt others (sexually, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, etc). Now, I have a few caveats to that which is not relevant in the current discussion. </p> <p> </p> <p> I admire and value intelligent and accomplished women. I also admire beautiful and sexy women. I also admire nurturing and supportive women. I can find nothing fundamentally wrong or demeaning about being sexy and beautiful. Appreciating one or another attribute about a woman does not equate to objectifying them. When I recognize a woman as intelligent (or am even turned on by her intelligence), that does not mean I see that woman as nothing more than a brain built for the sole purpose of stimulating me. Similarly, when I recognize a woman as hot (or am even turned on by her hotness), that does not mean I see that woman as nothing more than a hot body built for the sole purpose of arousing me. </p> <p> </p> <p>Now, I do have a big problem with those who truly objectify women as it gives them permission to invalidate the woman (her feelings, her personhood, her worth, etc). And I believe that is damaging to her. </p> <p> </p> <p>But, I reject the notion that a woman flaunting her sexiness is by definition demeaning herself.She could be, but it does not necessarily follow that she is. It could be argued that there are women who demean themselves by flaunting their intelligence if they think they would be worthless if not for their intelligence. </p> <p> </p> <p>The danger comes in thinking that this or that attribute is the only one of worth, and that we or others are worthless without it. </p> <p> </p> <p>So, I'd suggest we lay off those who celebrate their sexiness. If we don't know them, we don't know whether or not they are demeaning themselves as it depends on what they think about themselves and the meaning they give to what they are doing. Furthermore, we should not think that a woman who flaunts her sexuality is demeaning other woman. It just does not follow. We need to spend more time battling ideas and beliefs than being critical just because we see a portrayl of someone being sexy. The ideas that we need to battle is objectification (that a woman is not a person, but exists only for us), that the only characteristic of worth is sexiness, that if you don't look hot you are worthless. </p>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-19686949593292566452009-11-14T19:45:00.000-08:002009-11-14T19:46:31.930-08:00IntegrityMy wife once told me that one of the things she admired about me most was my integrity. Years later, it was my integrity that led me to leave the church immediately after learning it was not true. And the wonderful thing was my wife was understanding because she knew I was acting on my integrity. She eventually researched the same stuff I did, and left the church with me.Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-72850619848591694992009-06-07T16:52:00.000-07:002009-06-07T19:38:25.121-07:00What the Hieroglyph that looks like Obama means<p> There are a bunch of kooks on the internet claiming that the Egyptians predicted the dark reign of Obama, and take the hieroglyph that looks like him as proof that he is the anti-Christ. Nonsense like that, which is made out of thin air, bugs the crap out of me. And some people just lap it up only because it is consistent with their biases. </p> <p> </p> <p>I decided to post this here because due to our learning about the Book of Abraham, a fair number of us learned a bit about Egyptology and how to interpret the products of ancient Egypt. </p> <p> </p> <p> The following is from <a href="http://www.theliberaloc.com/2009/06/04/obama-finds-hieroglyph-that-looks-like-him/" target="_blank">here</a>: </p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p> In case you all were wondering what the big-eared <a href="http://www.theliberaloc.com/tag/hieroglyph/" title="hieroglyph">hieroglyph</a> that Obama joked about today, saying that it looked like him means…It is pronounced like the word “hair” and is commonly spelled “her” by Egyptologists. The hieroglyph often means “because,” or ”on account of.” It’s a standard sign... </p> </blockquote>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20847196.post-62872245323139604212009-02-06T02:12:00.000-08:002009-02-06T02:17:11.751-08:00A recent correspondence about evidence<p> My wife and I left the church 3 years ago. When that happened my wife's brother and I wrote back and forth a little. Mostly me answering his questions about how I account for this or that thing if I no longer believe in God. It was very respectful convo. I wanted him to look at some of the evidence that challenges the validity of the Church, but he said he was too busy with work, grad school, and a young family. The issue dropped. </p> <p> </p> <p>Fast forward three years. Now my wife's young sister who just started college just announced to the family that she left the Church because she doesn't believe in it. That same brother in law posted a message on his facebook page. You can read it below and my response. They are long, so read it if you want to, skip it if you don't. I didn't do a point by point refutation, because it would come across as a little too aggressive. </p> <p> </p> <blockquote>This note is prompted by a note posted recently by my sister about her religious choices. She's in college and is soul searching right now. Her decisions are hers to make, like they are for all of us. Her thoughts just prompted some of my own that I wanted to share for her and anyone else interested in thinking about it.<br /> <br /> I believe in God. I believe in Christ. I believe He is my Savior. I believe these things because I believe there is more credible evidence to support them than to refute them. Let me warn you now, this is a long post, because it's a first draft. I'll probably try to refine it over time. Nonetheless I wanted to put something out here, even if it is more like a short story than a note.<br /> <br /> The scriptures teach of a God who loves His children. Contrary to popular belief, the scriptures actually give us a history of a a God who on the whole, tells people what He wants but then lets them do what they want to do. It's hard to see that sometimes because most of the text in the scriptures are about the exceptions, when his interventions have been significant. However if one considers the number of people on the earth at various times and the amount of time that passes, along with the number of people involved in the events recorded, it seems that the majority of the general public that are discussed in the scriptures (not speaking of the prophets and those who wrote the books, now) had no more evidence than we have now to convince them to believe or disbelieve. There are exceptions, but people throughout scriptural times have found other ways to explain the creation and other things scriptures claim to explain. Their explanations range from their own sets of gods to acceptance of mysteries as unexplainable, to evolution, intelligent design, and other scientific pursuits.<br /> <br /> But the scriptures have been here through it all. Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus walk on water? Did Christ come back from the dead? These books we have make some pretty tall claims. Some believe they are completely true, some believe they're partially true with exaggeration for good story telling, some think they're completely fictional.<br /> <br /> The interesting thing about them, though, is that they teach about the spiritual life of a person. According to the scriptures, there is a spirit inside of us. Interestingly enough, this spirit only grows in certain ways. The scriptures teach that as we apply ourselves, and allow ourselves to believe, the spirit grows inside of us and we begin to learn more and grow more. Also interestingly, the scriptures teach that doubt destroys the spiritual growth.<br /> <br /> That's a challenge I've always struggled with, because if you believe in something and don't allow yourself to doubt, pretty soon you convince yourself and you become very sure, even though you have no way of confirming that the thing you're sure about is accurate or not. The human mind is capable of a lot of things, and who's to say that those of us who choose to believe are not merely conditioning our minds to think in terms of God and faith, and by so doing, make other paradigms seem unacceptable?<br /> <br /> So what if we do doubt? If we tend to think that the scriptures are stories that were made up for us, then what? We find other ways to account for the world around us. We rely on what we have to tell us what we need to know, and either develop an alternative faith and view of the world or become apathetic to the things we cannot see and understand. Many seek ways to achieve enlightenment, to achieve elevation or some other such things that gives extra meaning to life, as an answer to the spirituality offered by a religious faith.<br /> <br /> Many thoughtful people have thought about this. Many philosophies have come out. Some claim their philosophies come from higher sources. Perhaps they do. But there's something I've found in my faith that I haven't found a parallel for in all other philosophies and creeds I've considered. There is a personal test.<br /> <br /> Now, as stated before, when choosing faith, I think it's only honest to realize that the possibility exists that one is merely deceiving oneself. However, in my life, I've chosen faith because I feel that the scriptures make a solid case for the reality of the miracles they describe, and the preservation of the scriptures has been of utmost priority to a decent sized group of people throughout time--so although men are imperfect and capable of deception, the complete corruption of the scriptures would ultimately require collusion and conspiracy among such a wide range of individuals with such a wide range of motivations that it seems improbable that the miraculous stories contained in them would have been allowed to be lost.<br /> <br /> By choosing faith, the scriptures tell me I'll be blessed, and I find that when I read the scriptures or engage in religious discussions, I feel a sense of peace and calm that comes to me distinctly, a sensation that I can separate from other sensations I feel during other activities. As various events occur, the intensity of the sensation varies. Sometimes the sensations I experience trigger thoughts in my mind. When I act on those thoughts, the sensations I feel seem to grow stronger. When I ignore them they fade and go away. I've been around long enough to feel this come and go again and again. I didn't begin to feel these distinct sensations until after I had made an honest, deep, sincere commitment. That commitment was made through many hours of prayer, with many hours of fasting and pleading, as the scriptures describe, seeking to find forgiveness and understanding.<br /> <br /> It took me a lot ... I mean a LOT of effort to reach a point where I felt I was not being dishonest to say I really felt this. But now I do. I feel it regularly, and often. It is undeniable to me. Am I deceiving myself? Perhaps. But to me it's impossible to tell because I feel the influence come often before I become consciously aware of a stimulus that according to what I've learned from the scriptures, should cause it. These sensations always become intense and strong when I explore spiritual matters based on the scriptures I've come to accept as being true. They've also come when learning about various principles from various other sources, and I therefore believe that I've found truth in those sources as well. I don't feel it all the time, but I do know it is real, and I believe sincerely that although my actions influence how I feel it, I do not control the sensation myself.<br /> <br /> In conjunction with these sensations, I have actually experienced miracles like those described in the scriptures. I've seen a guy who couldn't walk on his leg without toppling receive a blessing, stand up and walk as though nothing were wrong. I've seen weather change in response to prayers. I haven't seen mountains move or people walk on water, but I believe it could happen if necessary. The more I've allowed myself to believe, the more I understand what I read in the scriptures, and the more I relate to the things I read. I feel as though this sensation I experience gives me a new dimension of life to explore, one beyond what I see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or even feel with my emotions. And I feel the scriptures act as a guide book to help me understand this dimension.<br /><br />This dimension of my life brings me great joy and comfort. It confirms for me the scriptures are reliable. I know and recognize that academically, one can find perceived inconsistencies in the scriptures. However, I also know that academically, one cannot understand the full context in which the scriptures are written. One can try, but without a spiritual dimension of analysis on what is written in the scriptures, I've become convinced that we cannot possibly hope to understand the true meaning of what is contained within those scriptures. For the people who wrote them, I believe, had achieved a certain level of mastery of this spiritual plain of which I speak. As they have written, they were forced to try to put into imperfect words the ideas and concepts they wished to communicate. But just as a picture can be worth 1,000 words, a spiritual idea cannot always be conveyed effectively even with a million words.<br /> <br /> Am I deceiving myself? Is this a sense of elevation or enlightenment induced by my own self-delusion based on expectations I have built for myself? Maybe ... But how many people who believe that have themselves harnessed the capability to utilize their 'elevation' to heal a man? Some may say they're out there, but I have yet to see it. Having experienced some tastes of what the Spirit can do for me in my life, I've left doubt behind.<br /> <br /> Now I have put a lot of time into studying various forms of history. I have sought out and read a lot of church history and a lot of philosophy, along with many other books and materials. I intend to continue to do so. I've investigated many claims that claimed to debunk the roots of the scriptures that have lead me to experience the spiritual enlightenment. I've not investigated every claim I've come across. But I have investigated many, and as of yet, I still have not found a single one that claims, with any believable basis, that the claims it makes are from God himself. Instead, they are all things written by humankind. They range from scientific studies to journal logs, to direct challenges based on thoroughly documented historical sources. But they all are written by people, and quote sources written by people.<br /> <br /> People are imperfect. That is a fact. I am imperfect. I make mistakes. I make terrible mistakes. Sometimes even the people we admire most make significant mistakes. Some who have claimed to be the most divinely inspired of God have made huge, imperfect mistakes. I don't question that. Even if people claim that their writings they claim to come from God are pirated from other sources, and they can quote the sources, it still does not sway me if I feel that sense of spiritual confirmation while studying those things. It's illogical academically, especially if one as an undeniable academic case. But it's just that. An academic case. How can one say that the evidence is not flawed? How can one determine that the claimed original source, in the example given, was not in fact written after the revelation, then given a false publishing date so as to appear to have been the first occurrence of the text? One can call upon testimony of humans, only--humans who have agendas, who are imperfect in their own understandings, humans who may have every good intention but simply are mistaken. They are still human.<br /> <br /> So do I put more stock in uncertain philosophies that are in fact claimed to have been conceived by imperfect academic humans who claim to be enlightened? Or do I put more stock in philosophies that are claimed to have been conceived by God, for which I can obtain my own sense and witness, and in fact an incredible life experience while embracing? I carefully choose the latter, while choosing also to remain conscious and aware of disagreeing philosophies, as I do find value in understanding them despite whatever fundamental disagreements I may have with them.<br /> <br /> I know many may think me foolish. We have our scientists who tell us how the world and life on it came to be, and claim to discredit the scriptural accounts and evidences of God based on the world itself. But I think it foolish for scientists to pretend to be able to make the claims they do about our history. We have an entire convoluted legal system set up, much of which is centered around trying to understand the recent past. The most reliable sources for telling what happened at a crime scene are records that came from the event -- videos, tapes and memories (witnesses). While forensic science has come a long way in determining what *probably* happened, based solely on evidence (skid marks, DNA samples, etc.), the true sequences of events identified by forensics are still merely a best guess as to what actually happened. Short of more conclusive evidence (such as videos), the claims scientists make with forensics often cannot be proven absolutely. Even in recent times, DNA evidence, which has become considered to be iron-clad evidence, has shown to be completely unreliable in a few cases where human beings are found to have more than one type of DNA in their body.<br /> <br /> What ?! But DNA doesn't lie! Well, that statement is based on an *assumption* that has been observed and widely accepted in the scientific world, that each body has a consistent type of DNA throughout their body. That assumption is now being challenged.<br /> <br /> Science naturally evolves and changes as new discoveries are made. To believe exclusively in science as truth is to ignore the reality that future discoveries are to be made. Science is good, but it is merely a tool to be used to view the world--and in my opinion, is not reliable enough to become the sole source of information about the world.<br /> <br /> I believe there are things science has yet to discover. I believe one major assumption that scientists rely upon is the consistent behavior of matter over time. Radioactive decay is used to estimate ages of objects based on this assumption. But is it a reliable assumption? How can we have any way of determining with any level of certainty that a certain radioactive isotope behaved the same way 1,000 years ago as it does today? Surely the academic mind will say that to question this is absurd. But is it? How can we know? We have no way to test a radioactive isotope IN THAT TIME FRAME. We can speculate, but that's it.<br /> <br /> I think scientists have made a lot of unprovable assumptions that they consider absurd for anyone to question. And many embrace their assertions as evidence of truth. And often these same individuals are the ones who will say my faith is delusional and unfounded, who will say I'm ignoring reality. I'm not. I'm simply open to new ways of perceiving reality, and will not deny myself the opportunity to embrace my humanity through a source that claims to have all truth.<br /> <br /> We have a source that claims to help us acquire all knowledge and understanding. I think it silly to ignore such a source, especially when the evidence I've experienced confirms it. Why should I choose to ignore Him because a bunch of arrogant humans think it's silly?<br /> <br /> With that said, I do value science still, and would gladly lend my expertise to further the investigation of scientists' theories even if they seem to prove philosophies with which I simply don't agree. That's because I support the pursuit of understanding, and that pursuit is valuable in all its forms so long as one doesn't begin to take one's self too seriously.<br /> <br /> But when it comes to my life, and my children, I have to make a commitment, a decision. Trust God? Trust man? Well, the evidence I see right now makes me choose God.<br /> <br /> I could go on to detail why I've chosen God in the context I have (i.e. in Mormonism) but that's another subject and I've written way more than enough already on this note. </blockquote><br /><br />Here was my reply:<br /><blockquote><blockquote> <p> I am happy for you that you have a set of beliefs that bring you joy. I used to share those same beliefs and remember exactly the joy I felt when I had those beliefs. I now have a new set of beliefs and continue to feel great joy. I am fine with us having different beliefs. Each person follows the dictates of their own conscience and judgment. What I say here, I say only to communicate my perspective in the spirit of increasing understanding, not to convince. I have stood in shoes very similar to yours. Much of what you have written here could have easily been written by me 4 years ago and before (in fact, I have made many similar statements in my previous writings that I could dig up if need be). I am very familiar with the worldview you present as I shared it up until almost three years ago. </p> <p> </p> <p> Given what I was aware of at the time, I too felt that there was more credible evidence supporting Mormonism than refuting it, and I couldn't imagine that ever changing. I too felt that it was more important to trust God and his scriptures and the witness of his Spirit, than man and his evidence which could be flawed; and that is exactly what I thought I was doing as a believing Mormon. </p> <p> </p> <p> I now have reason to feel differently. Does it at all interest you why? The last time we went through this, it was three years ago, both of us were still in grad school and you said that you were too busy to read what I (and Lilly) had read. Now there are three members of your family (who are just as familiar with the potential of human error and bias as you) and yet, even while considering all that you have said here, still are persuaded to feel differently about Mormonism than you. </p> <p> </p> <p> I am sure that must be puzzling to you. If I (Hueff) know that human evidence might be faulty, why would I ever be persuaded by it to reject the things I thought I knew by the Spirit? Most people never ask me that question and unfortunately many people resolve their puzzlement with assumptions. I have heard that your mom thinks it is because I am prideful. Others of our LDS friends suppose I have committed some sin and denied my beliefs so I wouldn't have to confront my sin and repent. Others think I just got too caught up in my studies of science and forgot my spiritual witnesses or that Satan deceived me. Perhaps most painful to me is when people assume that I somehow duped or manipulated Lilly and I am responsible for stealing her salvation. And you know what the first question your mom asked when Jana told her she no longer believed? It was, "Have you been talking to Hueff and Lilly?" Again as if I am to blame whenever anyone in the family doesn't believe in Mormonism anymore. Lilly and Jana are smart and can think for themselves, and I am not some enemy in the flock picking off family members one by one so that I can destroy your eternal family. I wish people would not assume bad things about me, but ask if my decisions confuse them. </p> <p> </p> <p> For the record, neither I nor Lilly had anything to do with Jana leaving the Church. Although we were the first ones she told, she did not tell anyone until after she was certain in her own mind because she did not want to be unduly influenced by anyone. And Lilly reached her own conclusions about the Church after her own research and now she knows some details about Joseph's polyandry and other things that I don't even know because she has had the interest and time to read some books that I haven't yet. And, for the record, I am not guilty of some great sin, nor have I forgotten my "spiritual witnesses", or "answered prayers", or "priesthood healings", or any of the scriptures I have memorized or doctrines I used to believe in. I confront them with as much honesty and integrity as I can. Perhaps I am a little prideful (I have always struggled with that), but that is not why I don't believe. And yes, I fully remember 2 Nephi 9:28-29; I now see it as a rather convenient way to dismiss and demonize those who don't believe in the Church anymore. </p> <p> </p> <p> I'll tell you what I think separates me from my former believing self. I have just learned some things that I did not know before, and I have honestly confronted those things and accepted the implications of them. I don't think I was foolish for believing the way I did. I was just uninformed, and there is no shame in that. Now, there were times when I was still a believing member, when I thought I was informed. If one reads the entire FAIR LDS site, one will get the false sense that one knows all the dirt and still believes. And after talking with great defenders of the faith such as Daniel Peterson and Jeff Lindsey who one suspects knows even more and they still believe, one feels secure that there is nothing to fear from whatever evidence is out there as these men surely know it and still believe. And one will assume that surely the General Authorities know everything and still believe (they even claim to "know"), so all is well in Zion. Besides any evidence that is out there comes from human sources and we all know humans can make errors. </p> <p> </p> <p> But, then one remembers that everything we have has first been filtered through human minds: the scriptures, the general conference talks, the church sanctioned church history including Joseph's reporting of the first vision, even the meaning and interpretation we give to the experiences we call spiritual were filtered through our own human mind (or at least might be). We can't be sure that anything has come directly from God. So, now the playing field is a little more level. We have things that came through humans that is claimed to be from god and things that came through humans who acknowledge it came through humans. We know that not everything that is claimed to have come from a god actually did, for they contradict each other. We have a human bias to suspect that it is always the other guy's prophet that is mistaken or a liar; it is worth considering that it might be ours. We can so easily point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the other guy's message because we are not forbidden from doubting his message, but we are not allowed to doubt our prophet's message because "faith doesn't work that way". In my opinion, truth is truth and should be able to stand on its own when scrutinized. </p> <p> </p> <p> Faith is so dangerous because it opens the door to be deceived. How can anyone ever learn that they are on the wrong path unless they allow themselves to doubt? How can scientologists, fundamentalist Mormons, or Muslims begin to fairly consider their religion if they are discouraged from looking at the evidence that might challenge their religions validity? LDS missionaries encourage investigators to doubt whatever religion they are coming from so that they can accept Mormonism. (Mormons don't like to frame it that way, but that is what they are doing. Missionaries are hoping that their investigators will believe in Mormonism and Catholicism both equally and at the same time. They want them to disbelieve, doubt, and reject those parts of Catholicism that don't gel with Mormonism). Shouldn't we be willing to at least fairly examine our own religion and be open to doubting if the situation calls for it? Many Mormons think they have fairly examined their own religion before they have exposed themselves to all the evidence. If one only listens to the defense attorney's case (and only a few distorted rumors of the prosecutor's evidence) then of course one is going to conclude that the defense has the more credible case. </p> <p> </p> <p> Since one can never know if one has heard all the evidence there is a critical necessity to continue to read info that is critical of whatever your current beliefs are at the time. That is the only way to discover that you are on the wrong course. So, even though I left the Church 3 years ago, I still read things in favor of the Church, just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Alvin may not remember, but he has been confused in the past why I keep GospeLink on my computer even though I don't believe anymore. That is one of the reasons why. Sure, we have to be skeptical of any source. If we are talking about a person's account of events, we have to consider the author's possible bias, faulty memory or perception, etc. But, we also have reasons to believe a person's account, if it is consistent with the accounts given by others who likely did not coordinate testimonies, if it is consistent with collaborating physical evidence, and other things. But, there are many types of evidence besides testimony. Sure, anyone has a chance of being faulty, but they also have a chance of being right and when the evidence mounts up and it begins to paint a consistent picture, you are more likely to be right trusting what that evidence is showing than picking the position that is the direct opposite. </p> <p> </p> <p> Tony, you now have three family members who have looked at the evidence that I don't believe you have fully examined or become acquainted with, yet (correct me if I'm wrong). We all believe there really is something to it (even after making considerations for human error, etc). I have stood in shoes very similar to yours and believed very similarly to you before I examined this evidence. It might be worth taking a look at it and at least consider it for yourself. You may not come to the same conclusion, but you may at least want to know what is out there. If you stay in the Church, you are likely to hold many leadership callings and be placed in a situation in which you will need to counsel those who have confronted and wrestled with this evidence. You might want to be familiar with it if for no other reason than to be better able to counsel those people. Simply claiming that the evidence might be faulty and we should trust God instead of man isn't going to help much or answer the serious questions posed by what is out there. </p> <p> </p> <p> If you decide to really investigate this, you will need to read some books written by non-believers to get the full picture. Be as skeptical as you want and run all of their cross references, but don't ignore them or you will never get exposed to all the evidence, because faith promoting sources and apologist sites don't talk about things they don't have a good response for. Just consider, a Scientologist might never learn of the challenging evidence against his religion if he would not read anything written by a non-believer. </p> <p> </p> <p> Now, some original sources you will not be able to get your hands on because they are locked up in the Church Archives which are now closed to the public. They used to be wide open to the public and BYU historians (such as D. Michael Quinn) used to love digging through them and researching, but once they started publishing their findings and their findings were not flattering of the Church, they started limiting access to them. But, many of the original sources are available, even online, through church approved venues or at least believing members' websites. </p> <p> </p> <p> If you decide to start an investigation, I recommend starting with the FAIR LDS site. It is a pro-LDS apologetic site, so you will feel safe and comfortable there. They admit to a number of challenging things so you will at least know that the issues are legitimate, not just made up anti lies. Since they are an apologetic site, they of course give their spin on things to try to preserve the faith of those who are questioning. I am basically encouraging you to hear the defense's argument first. After you have read much of what is there (or whatever interests you) you might even feel stronger in your faith than before because you will think that you have now faced a lot of the difficult stuff with your faith in tact. But, don't stop there, for you have done nothing but hear the defense's argument. But, after you've done that (if you do it at all and no matter how long it takes) let me know and then I'll point you to some other things, if you want. Again, I am not trying to convince you, just expose you to some things so that you can begin to understand why Lilly and I don't believe in Mormonism anymore. (You'd have to ask Jana why she doesn't believe anymore if you want to understand her). </p> <p> </p> <p> Your brother-in-law, </p> <p> </p> <p> Hueff </p> </blockquote></blockquote>Hüffenhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15721254732982582835noreply@blogger.com6