Tuesday, 22 February 2011

deepak chopra on belief and science

The Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future? (1 of 12)
Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston
"i am not here to discuss belief. i think belief is a coverup for insecurity. you only believe in things that you dont know the truth of and you want to know the truth of. if i asked you "do you believe in electricity or electromagnetism?" you would say "what kind of a ridiculous question is that?" if you want to know the truth you must have the experience, you must have a theoretical basis and you must have the rules of science to either falsify what you are saying, experimentally prove it or at least submit to what is called occam's principle, the theory or parsimony--the simplest explanations are the best explanations. so i'm not here to defend the god of primitve theology...we are here not to argue the validity of science. science is the most impeccable way of understanding the rules, the laws of nature. it is science that brought us the rules of mathematics, physics, chemistry, cosmology, evolution. so we're not going to argue about that."

as a side note, i really love michael shermer's comments:
if there really is a god, then obviously he or she has a future. if there is no god then we're really only talking about the future of the belief in god.

Thursday, 10 February 2011

the lds apologetic "speaking as a man"+"leaders aren't perfect" vs. "divinely inspired leadership" problem

when mormons want to claim that some statement/action was inspired they claim that the prophet, apostle, leader, etc. "was guided by the holy ghost" and use that as a proof that their belief is true.

however when the same prophet, apostle, leader, etc. says something proven to be false they'll say things like:
* "he wasn't speaking as a prophet, etc., he was only speaking as a man; he was only giving his opinion"
* "nobody's perfect"
* "he was simply telling his audience then and there what they needed to hear to benefit them"

user crossroads on exmormon.org brought up a good point:
I do find it quite foolish that members don't seem to worry about financial transparency regarding church funds. This especially since an important teaching spouted by the door to door salesmen is regarding "the great apostacy", where the church after Christ, led by prophets and "righteous" priesthood holders fell into sin and wickedness, eventually losing its divine authority.
Modern members seem not to realize that early apostles of the LDS were excommunicated, or if they do, they do not make the connection that this clearly means the GAs of today can be corrupt.
Why have members now seemed to accept so blindly that their leaders are infallible? It is ridiculous and evidence of a personality cult.

if you come across these apologetic excuses simply ask:
then why do you trust church leaders blindly with the member's tithing money and donations and require no transparency?

Sunday, 6 February 2011

christianity and homosexuality

a nice comment by billpeet on Religious freedom under siege, Mormon leader says:
Question for religious people regarding your disapproval of homosexuality:

Why does your god create hermaphradites (people born with both male and female genitalia)?

Obviously, your god deliberately and consciously created these people as sexual deviants and biologically abnormal. Should we judge them immoral beings?

And of course, your god also deliberately creates infertile people. These people are clearly not helpful at all in reproducing the species, and cannot further your god's aim to spread his creation throughout the world. Why does he create them, then? Should they be celibate for life, given that their sexual activity is merely for self-gratification, and cannot lead to reproduction?

Obviously, it is not too far a leap to then ask, if your god deliberately created these sexual deviations and abnormalities, why is it fantastical to wonder if he also created homosexuals, as they are? With the two previous examples, it is fairly easy to see the obvious abnormality. But with homosexuality, sexual orientation is within the mind, and not an obvious physical abnormality like a hermaphrodite. But the brain is every bit as physical and biological as any other aspect--why would you pronounce a negative moral judgement, simply because you cannot physically see your god's abnormal choice?

Saturday, 5 February 2011

my response to a letter from a tbm to his exmormon brother

> As you know it is a sad day when a brother, figuratively and literally, loses his testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel as you have recently declared. And so it is with a heavy heart that I write this letter. First, I must tell you that I am sad for you.

I understand that you are sad brother, but I feel good about my decision.

> This gospel is true! Of that I have no doubt.

I know you *believe* the gospel is true. It is not unlikely that you have no doubt. I too had no doubt before until I researched church history and found many issues and events that I was never told about in church, which cast great shadows of doubt on what I have been taught. Even more frightening is that the church (e.g. Apostle Boyd Packer) even admits that "some things [truths] are just not useful" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_K._Packer#Faith-promoting_history ):

In a 1981 speech to educators in the LDS Church Educational System, he cautioned them that "There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful." Arguing that teachers should "give milk before meat", he stated that "some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy." Packer's opinion applied to all historians who were members of the LDS Church: he stated, "One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for 'advanced history', is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be held accountable."

and that Apostle Dallin Oaks even admits that the church doesn't represent itself in a balanced way ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Range_of_perspective ):

"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides." (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators' Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.)

The problem with Oaks' statement is that anti-mormons CAN tell both sides, but the non-faith-promoting information--Packer's so-called "advanced history"--will always be damaging for the church, thus the church is in the weaker and less-truthful unbalanced position because they CANNOT tell both sides or--to repeat myself--it would be damaging. to reiterate once again: the anti-mormon side is the only side which CAN give a balanced view, whereas the church CANNOT present itself in a balanced way.

> has denied the testimony delivered by the Holy Ghost so many times in his life, has caused my heart to grieve.

I know this seems hard for you to understand, but when you realize that most people in all other religions (e.g. 2+ billion christians, 1.5+ billion muslims) believe just as strongly that THEIR religion is true--and have had similar religious experiences to mormons--really discounts feelings and emotions as a valid indicator of truth. In the real world, truth is established by evidence and data that are testable, reproducable and peer-reviewed. It is a good thing that people cannot be convincted in a court of law, merely based upon feelings, but rather by physical evidence which establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt.

> First, I'm angry. I'm angry that you have made a declaration so strong and bold

Please don't be angry.

> "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".

I understand your desire to quote this phrase to defend your faith, but it is a contradiction to the concept of being a "slave of Christ". I do however think that the more knowledge one obtains, the better the position we are in to make a rational, wise decision. This is how I arrived at my decision to leave the church. After seeing the real *balanced* view of the church, its history and it's contradictory teachings, the choice was quite simple. Feelings and emotions simply cannot trump facts.

> I'm surprised that you've thrown away all that you once knew to be true

what I believed to be true about the church, yes, but I haven't thrown away ALL that I know to be true.

> along with the accompanying blessings that come through obedience

the fact that "blessings" also come to people who DON'T obey "god's" laws nullifies this claim, just as much as the fact that bad things happen to obedient people.

> with so little evidence to back up your new found `religion'.

non-belief in deity is not a religion. the *much* evidence AGAINST the church is the issue.

> I too could be standing in your shoes, the shoes of apostasy.

I call it enlightenment.

> I don't believe you found the `truth' through thorough and thoughtful research; I believe you lost the truth because you failed to `endure to the end'.

to your credit, you use the word "believe" instead of "know" this time. you "believe", but you are however mistaken. I DID thoroughly research the church and have critically thought about it's teachings and what they mean in the real world and how they affect real people in the real world. E.g. Prop8 is a great contradiction to the 11th Article of Faith:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Attempting to take away the civil rights of homosexuals flies in the face of this claim by the church and it is inhumane. the church's actions and statements against homosexuals are hurtful, have caused immeasurable suffering, suicides and are not something I want to associate myself with.

> At any time have you done all of the following: Attended church consistently all 3 hours; held a calling; been assigned as a home teacher; had home teachers; gone on splits with the missionaries; paid a full tithing; attended the temple regularly; prayed daily; read the scriptures daily? This is full activity, and this is what it takes to stay strong and firm in the gospel.

After my thorough research, I also realized that extreme mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance would also be requirements to stay active and "firm in the gospel".

> Satan is real, and anything less than this slows our progress and opens the door ever so slightly for him to begin to influence us. He never sleeps, is always patient, and takes every opportunity to blind us and make us lose our way. Nothing makes him happier.

the concept of a devil, troublemaker or adversary has existed in religions and many cultures, some older than christianity. it is one way that humans have tried to explain hurtful human actions and has served many well as a scapegoat for responsibility of their own actions. the "satan" figure is actually the church's greatest ally--without him and "hell" there would be nothing to threaten believers with if they were disobedient. in new testament times, when someone started convulsing, people thought they were possessed by a demon. today we know what epilepsi is and we take these people to a doctor, not a religious leader.

> an apostate organization who thought they were being brainwashed and abused. And by the way, they were being brainwashed and abused. Duh!

the major difference between the FLDS and the LDS church, as we all know is the issue of polygamy. brainwashing and abuse however are present in both organizations. here is a great list of attributes and requirements of a cult:

i can easily recognize AT LEAST the following points:
1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 8...2, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98

> I personally believe this is the process the Lord expects all of his children to follow.

yes, the church teaches that you should have faith and that "blessed is he that believeth without seeing", but in the real world this amounts to foolishness and naivete. airplanes are not made using faith. you don't buy a car based on faith.

> I've known you for 48 years and I smell a cut and paste.

why do you hold joseph smith to a different standard, who cut and pasted large portions of the king james bible into the book of mormon?

> So, if these words aren't really yours, I don't believe the searching of the factual accounts is yours either.

will you then apply this to your belief in the book of mormon?

> They are men, not Gods.

no, they are "men of god", prophets, the lord's annointed, etc..

> You don't expect every founder of the early church to be perfect, right?
> But if the church were ever being led by a prophet who was not following the Lord he would be removed from his post. That is true.

joseph smith and his polygamous and polyandrous behavior serve as a good example of this actually, but really this line of thinking is contradictory:

* if a man isn't following the Lord, then he will be removed by his post
* he's only a man, he's not perfect
* if a prophet dies, was he not following the lord?
* if a prophet or apostle decides to leave the church because of his conviction that it is wrong, he will be assumed to have not been following the Lord and have been doing evil, even though he has broken no commandment

apologists like to use this fallacious thinking to both take credit for the good and explain away the bad:

* prophet A said X <-- he was speaking as a prophet * prophet B said something contradictory or was shown to be proven false over time <-- he was only speaking as a man > One perplexing fact is that I have never known another religion that professes to know the answers to these questions. In fact they revel in their non-committal reply when they say, "God does not share all his mysteries with men". That's an excuse that means, I don't have the answer because God hasn't told me the answer, because I don't believe in personal revelation. That's heresy in most religions. God is so great that he doesn't talk to losers like us.

when will the exact time of the second coming be?

"God does not share all his mysteries with men"

enough said.

> I know this to be true because if truth is what you are truly after, there is only one place on the face of the earth where you will find it in its entirety… the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

in its *entirety*? are you serious? c'mon....

> we will always love you and appreciate you for the value you add to our family. You can leave the church, but you can't ever stop being our brother.

thank you, i love you too.

Thursday, 3 February 2011

conversation between me and my tbm mormon friend

his comments begin with ">". my response comes beneath that line.

> I believe that the world is surrounded by proof that God does exist. Alma 30:44 - "...all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

because things exist, god exists? how about the dairy cow or the dog or giant strawberries or...? these are things designed by man. because something exists doesnt equate to PROOF that there is a supernatural god, yahweh--one of a thousand different gods we have "scriptures" about.

> God does exist. My belief in Him does not take away freedom or pursuit of happiness. My belief system does not infringe on others ability to believe how they wish. I believe that others have the God given right to believe and worship how they choose. My understanding doesn't remove or impose upon the free will of others.

one word: prop8

> God does exist

stating something as a fact doesnt make it true, even though boyd packer tells you so:
"A testimony is found in the bearing of it." (from "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55)

this implies:
If you don't know whether something [we Mormons teach] is true, just bear your testimony of it anyway, as if you knew it, and eventually you will come to find that you 'know' it.

this is called self-brainwashing.

> The creation of life cannot be explained by science. Sure, there might be a process explained through the use of combining DNA from a man and DNA from a woman. Chromosomal Pairs from each combining to form a new entity that then begins to replicate and "create" a new human. But how does science explain how each individual body part is created through that replication process.

science can sure explain A LOT about the creation of life and is finding out new information all the time. what is religion doing: god created life. period.? doctors and scientists know how to clone biological organisms, regrow tissue and manipulate the human body in many ways. you can technically choose the gender of your baby these days. geneticists KNOW how cells reproduce based on genetic encoding.

> Science does explain some things, but it has the inability to explain all things. That is why both Science and Faith are important.

you keep trying to marginalize science, when religion explains nothing. saying "a miracle happened" explains NOTHING. saying "god created the universe" explains NOTHING. every comfort and technology you have is the product of the scientific process.

> I take that same understanding through science, combine it with my faith and knowledge of God, and increase my peace and understanding.

sorry, but this sounds really pompous.

> I do not impose my belief system on others.

missionary work, temple ordinances for the dead, indoctrination of children. can your kids stay home from church whenever they want to?

> Neither of us will ever be persuaded by the other.

tell me something persuasive =)

my response to john gray's words about atheism and nazi germany/adolf hitler

this is my response to john gray's remarks about atheism and nazi germany/hitler.

"Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible."

> He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree.

exactly. he used religious ideology, BELIEF IN GOD, to justify his persecution of jews, not a DISBELIEF in god.

> But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history.

race IS a scientific category whether you are theistic or atheistic. the OPPOSITE however is the more dangerous belief, that one race is divinely appointed to rule over another race!

> Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion.

this completely contradicts hitler's use of religious belief in god and biblical antisemitism as grounds for persecuting jews.

> There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

type of atheism? atheism is merely ONE SINGLE aspect of a person's psychology--non-belief in deity/supernatural. period. it doesn't have any "types". what made nazi crimes possible was shown by the stanley milgram experiment on obedience and philip zimbardo's standford prison experiment.

my response to "No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions."

my mormon friend wrote to me in a mail recently:
So now that you have found a new way of life, tell me what your purpose is. Do you now intend on trying to contradict all religions, or just the LDS Faith? No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions.

my response:
well, i don't have a purpose, i simply exist, but isn't everybody's *real* desire to do things that make them happy/give them pleasure?
i enjoy discovering and uncovering logical fallacies, yes, especially when they are a part of a belief/political system that tries to take away people's freedoms and pursuit of happiness, as long as THAT pursuit of happiness doesn't infringe upon others, etc.

> No one has all the answers, and the world is surrounded by contradictions.

this is exactly how religions full of cognitive dissonance want their believers to respond to things they are taught that are contradictory or things they don't understand:
"well, god understands it. he'll sort it out in the eternities. it's not relevant to my salvation."
"if it can't be explained then god must have done it"
"no one will ever be able to understand/explain that. god's ways are not our ways, his ways are higher than our ways"

on the contrary, science can explain A LOT of things; science has A LOT of answers. it's the BEST tool we have to understand the world around us. like i've mentioned before, just look at all that science ALREADY has given us answers to. we have, e.g.:
* microwave ovens
* atom smashers
* lasers
* virtual reality
* computers and the www
* organ transplants
* we've been to the moon

the list goes on and on.

there's a really cool debate between sam harris and michael shermer vs. deepak chopra about "the future of god". a really cool opening remark by shermer was that "we're only really talking about the future of the *belief* in god. belief in belief."

i know the church teaches you that you can only know REAL truth by "the testimony of the holy ghost", but when you think rationally about it, this is absolutely untrue, and the REAL world doesn't work that way. testable, reproducible and peer-reviewed scientific data is the only way people in the real world establish "truth". the FDA requires this in order to legalize medicine.
the only way poor kids get into ivy league colleges is a scholarship, granted on the basis of perfect grades and the highest test scores. and so on and so on.

when you look e.g. at the old testament's teachings, you can see that these were based on the knowledge (science) that they had at that time in the bronze age. we know that the earth revolves around the sun. we know the earth is not flat. we know there wasn't a global flood. we know that homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. we know what epilepsi is--we take our child to a doctor when he starts seizing, not a priest because we think he's possessed of the devil or a demon. we know that you don't stone your child if he doesn't obey you. we know you don't stone a woman if she commits adultery.

i know it might be hard to swallow (for me it was the opposite, i was excited when i understood all of this), and the natural reaction is to fall back on feelings you get, feelings/impressions you think come from god or the holy ghost, but like i've said before, suicide bombers believe in their cause even MORE than you believe in yours, because they LITERALLY believe that they will enter paradise and meet muhammad and receive their virgins enough to actually kill themselves (and others). most people in other religions have the exact same feelings/impressions that you have experienced. the simple explanation for this is psychology. and again thinking rationally about it, feelings and the supernatural never trump scientific facts. that's why no one has ever taken james randi's 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can prove he has supernatural abilities

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

lds cult attributes


from only a quick glance, without reading further about each of the other points i dont list here, i can "testify" of at least these points and give examples where the lds church uses these tactics or fulfills these requirements:
1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

how to argue against the theist claim that "god gives scientists their knowledge and ideas"

my theist pharm rep friend says:
claim 1
> Chemical Engineers are using the scientific method to develop the drugs I sell, but I do believe the intelligence and ideas they are given come from God.

then he tries to downplay science ("god" in his previous statement):
claim 2
> Science is a constantly changing set of theories. What is "known and true" today, may be different in ten years, and then change back ten years later.


"skunk puppet" makes a good response to the first claim:
mankind's steps in science and medicine been so slow and painstaking with advances usually opposed and blocked by religious leaders (e.g., Galileo).

"Jon" responds to the first claim as well:
Which scientists does god give ideas to? Just the ones whose findings support your religion or all of them?

where i then add:
"god" did not inspire nazi doctors to perform human torture experiments on jews during WW2 so that we could learn what they learned.


Contemporary knowledge concerning the manner in which the human body reacts to freezing is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments.

and my response to the second claim is this:
eventually things in science stick, otherwise we wouldnt have airplanes making transatlantic flights or supercomputers or satellites if theories were constantly changing and flip-flopping like you suggest.

in conclusion, when put together, these two poor, theistic claims/arguments contradict themselves:
* god gives science its knowledge
* science is wishywashy and cant be trusted because its truths change all the time and change from true to false and then back to true

and there's not much more to the argument when you look at science's *knowledge* about how long homo sapiens have lived: at least 100,000 years

compared to the old testament's claim of about 6-7000 years.

hi i'm jessica, i'm a mormon


book of mormon contradiction: god was and is eternal and unchangeable

my good friend lisa pointed this out to me:
(Moroni 8:18)For I know that God is not a partial god, neither a changable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity......(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345) We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...he was once a man like us.

Jon replies:
It's not just the Book of Mormon that gets contradicted.
Mormonism is just one big contradictory hypocritical pantomime:
Polygamy is okay - oh no it isn't...
Blacks can't have the Priesthood - oh yes they can...
Adam is God - oh no he isn't...
God was once a man - oh no he wasn't - errr I mean oh yes he was...
Give generously to the poor - even if the Church doesn't...
Stay out of debt - but pay tithing before any bills...
Listen to the Prophet - oh no don't listen to those old Prophets...
Women can't pray in sacrament meeting - oh yes they can...
Gays can't be married - *watch this space*

enochian magick pele ring and temple garments connection

i have independently found elements in the temple ceremony in some of my old occult books (that joseph smith reportedly had in his day), e.g. the pele ring (from the year 1583):

look at that square symbol (from enochian magick) and you will see all the marks on the temple garment: the L, V, and the horizontal line, on top of an O, which represents the navel =)

and then there's the word PELE. sound familiar?

i haven't read all of d michael quinn's book early mormonism and the magic world view, so i'm not sure if he has noticed this.

source: my post on exmormon.org

theists reaction to a friend saying he wrote himself out of the mormon church

here's the facebook conversation so far:
"Atheist A"
Da er det gjort:))
January 25 at 9:15pm · · Comment · Share

You, "Theist LW" and "Person B" like this.
"Person C" Flott;)
January 25 at 9:16pm ·
"Person D" what?? :)
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
"Person E" Hva har du gjort nå....?
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
"Theist LW" I det stadiet du har vært den siste tiden, så er nok dette for tiden kanskje det beste for deg. Men på lang sikt så er jeg lei meg for denne avgjørelsen din. Evigheten er myyyye lengre enn den lille tiden vi flyr rundt her på jorda å virrer rundt som bortkommne insekt.
Sunday at 8:28pm ·
"Atheist A" Hva har du fått i deg "Theist LW" ??;))
Sunday at 8:37pm ·
"Theist LW" Litt cola bare ; ) he he he
Sunday at 10:14pm ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey da er det gjort her også =)
Sunday at 10:27pm ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey "Theist LW", you are stating a belief as a fact: that the soul exists eternally. there is no scientific and testable proof of anything other than the fact that we are primates.
Sunday at 10:30pm ·
"Person E" Fortiden og fremtiden er bare en illusjon, det eneste vi vet helt sikkert er at vi lever her og nå!
Sunday at 10:34pm · · 1 personLoading...
"Theist LW"
I am not one who needs scientific proofs. I Get my answers, I have found peace, and Need no DNA proof, that is written on a piece of paper. Verry scientific by the way.....
And i already knew that you wrote yourself out. I guess I can refe...r to a great Metallica song, "sad but true" ; ) Wich also leads me to another great song by Whitney Houston " I will always love you" : DSee More
Sunday at 10:45pm ·
"Person D" geez!!!!
Sunday at 11:08pm ·
"Theist LW" Jeg er veldig nysgjerrig på hvordan du får fortiden til å bli en illusjon. Sier du da at jeg egentlig ikke var på Kongsberg skisenter på lørdag ???? Og at jeg ikke hadde taco til middag igår ???? Veldig interresant tanke......
Yesterday at 8:37am ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
"Theist LW", listen to yourself. these are the classic words of what is called "a science denier". dont you want scientific proof that a medicine works and doesnt have dangerous side effects before you take it? dont you want scientific proof that... a new airplane model has been thoroughly tested before you get on it for a transatlantic flight? if you were accused of rape, wouldnt you demand scientific (dna) evidence and rely on that evidence to get you acquitted? did religion make your video camera or your computer? no, it was made using the scientific process. did religion make your car or your clothes or the birth control you use? religion only takes people's money, tells them to be nice while at the same time telling them to hate certain people and gives people false hope. homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. the bible claims the first offspring (cain) was born around 6000-7000 years ago.
"Theist LW", can i suggest a video for you?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6wSee More
23 hours ago ·
"Person D" Nicholas: Signerer innlegget ditt!!! ;)
23 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
"Theist LW"
NO NICK, you listen to yourself. Three years ago you where preaching this stuff that you are now in total denial of, 15 years ago you knocked down thousands of doors in Norway for two years and spent either your or the Church`s money to sha...re the Gosspel. I gotta say, you`ve come a looooong way since that. Until last year, And unfortunatly I feel it`s the wrong way since then. Money will always be a temporary state of luck, and the past year or so, that`s been your quest, to see how "gold diggin" the lds church is. And how much money you`ve "lost".
I could share tons of links to proove you wrong, but you can search em up, just like you search for everything else ; ) www.google.com
True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$
And I know this, since I`ve experienced both sides of good and bad economics. True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.See More
23 hours ago ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
exactly "Theist LW". i was raised in a cult that told me NOT to think outside the box, i.e. church, who controlled what information i had about them by telling me NOT to read anything contrary to their teachings, who told me what to think and wha...t NOT to think, what to feel and what NOT to feel. i was brainwashed by a cult.

> you`ve come a looooong way since that

no shit =) thank science and reasoning for that!

> True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$

and who do you think taught you that "Theist LW"? this is EXACTLY the kind of shit they WANT you to believe.

> True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.

true happiness starts with financial independence: the ability to do what you want, when you want and not be under the control of anyone else. true happiness ends with/is completed by doing what makes you most happy.

> Money will always be a temporary state of luck

have you heard of economics? fiscal responsibility? controlling spending? investing? education? do you think the church just "got lucky" with their money? no, they implemented a law requiring people to pay them 10% of the income in order to be saved. you can't NOT pay tithing and be "saved in the highest celestial kingdom".

listen to what hinckley says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxClKTZj5Fg

(in any other context this would be considered a threat and extortion)

you still haven't responded to the science denying and i hope you watch that video i suggested.See More
22 hours ago ·
"Person D" And what are members of the church doing on the internet anyway??
members of that church really needs a wake-up call!!!!!
22 hours ago ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
sorry "Theist LW", but its easier for me to type on my keyboard than an sms so i'll post the argument you just send me on my phone. you wrote:
> "if anyone is in denial it would be you. reason number one: you keep calling me a denier"

i fail to see... your logic.

> "reason number two: if you never had a doubt about god or his existence, you would never choose to walk the path you are now on."

i dont have a doubt that god (YHWH, the god of the old testament) doesnt exist. i want my friends and family to realize this too and stop letting themselves be controlled by a corporation pretending to be a church. and what can i say? i was raised to tell others about my "beliefs". who can blame me? =)

> "which leads on to reason 3: your constant need to "prove" that you are right"

it's my need to destroy organizations who control and rob people of their freedom, joy and money. see also my response to "reason 2".

> "the fact that you wrote yourself out of the church was wise though. this means that there's still hope, after this life at the latest"

by baptizing me for the dead? =) i'll pass. i hereby deny god/elohim/yhwh, jesus and the holy ghost as false, monstrous idols. see, nothing really happens "Theist LW" =) all the church's threats are empty =) the godhead can suck my dick =) see? god's not striking me down =)

> "hugs and squeeze"

the same to you =)See More
22 hours ago ·
"Theist LW"
So just live it up then, and leave the rest of us LDS in peace. You have no power over my beliefs, even with your links and "proofs". I just gotta wish you the best of Luck. ; )
Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that.See More
22 hours ago ·
"Theist LW" And where would we get that wake up call ???
22 hours ago ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎> leave the rest of us LDS in peace.

if i'm not mistaken "Theist LW", you commented on bårds status on his own page. the fact is that LDS and other religions dont let the rest of US live in peace. they're out there proselyting and meddling with p...olitical affairs, e.g. Prop 8, lobbying for teaching of ID in schools, trying to stop non-believers from living the way THEY want to live, trying to take away THEIR joy. reread your 11th article of faith:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

hugs and squeezes =)

> "Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that."

goddamn your love runs deep =) sorry "Theist LW", wont happen again.See More
21 hours ago ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey i love you "Theist LW" despite our differences in opinion =)
21 hours ago ·
"Theist CL"
Your arguments are horribly framed "Theist LW". As someone that is LDS I'm asking you to please give independent thought to what it is Nick and everyone is saying. Faith is not something that can be explained. There is no "proof" we can offer.... If people are better w/out their faith, let them be and be happy that they are "better". All of your post make you seem so threatened by what other people are doing with their lives. Let your faith in God give you comfort that his plan includes what Bard and Nick do with their lives and let it support you in your endeavors to better your own.See More
9 hours ago ·
"Theist LW"
You are right "Theist CL", and I suck at anything that has to do with explaining, it is not ment as judgmental or anything, I am actually trying to tell them to leave us LDS in peace as well, but as long as I see a fist, I guess I suck at turnin...g the other cheek. But yeah I do it wrong, and it always ends up looking like a mess. But thanks for the heads up l ; )
Pluss I love these guys like they where my own brothers, so it gets complicated realy fast.See More
7 hours ago ·
"Theist CL"
I agree about the brothers thing but your ARE making judgments left and right (both sides are btw). I just don't know what you mean about being "left alone". Athiest have an agenda just as valid as any religion does. If they feel they're... making the world better by helping people think a different way then great. No different than what we did for two years in Norge...right? Like me I assume you still support the LDS missionary program because you believe in what it has to offer. You can't be "left in peace" unless you tell your sons and daughters to let people be "left in peace" regarding the LDS missionaries. Do you watch the stuff Nick posts? It's actually quite interesting. Food for thought and such.See More
7 hours ago ·
"Person TKP"
It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

A religion (or the lack of it) should tolerate critisicm, so a discussion is sometimes good. I just felt that this one wasn't a constructive one, so I didn't want t...o participate.

We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another. And even if The Holy Spirit did exist and did speak to us, without our normal senses, we wouldn't be able to prove it. So it all boils down to beliefs.

I think Bård is brave to make his standpoint clear, the same way he was brave to make his standpoint when he attended the church earlier.See More
7 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
"Theist LW"
"Person TKP" I am glad you joined this little debate here, cause what you say, is pretty much what I think, but like I said earlier, I suck at getting this right. And having a strong belief in one thing and seeing great friends such as Nick and Bå...rd, take a stand like this is a great mixture of feelings. But it all comes down to Respect. And I do respect the choice they made. I will work at the Judgmental part, and show some love : )
Peace out for now ; )See More
6 hours ago ·
"Person TKP" Peace :)
6 hours ago ·
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎@"Person TKP"

> It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

please point out the things that i wrote that DONT make sense.
> We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

religion deserves NO respect. it is dangerous and counterproductive to progress, understanding of the universe and all that humanism stands for; teaching people:

* that it is a good thing to believe in things they cant see or prove (funny how believers dont apply this principle to any OTHER part of their life like buying a house, car, stocks, legal matters, flying airplanes, taking medicine or medical procedures. for all those things they want evidence that their decision is correct and safe and guaranteed. but if a guy comes and says give me your money and let me dictate exactly how you should live your life and in return i'll give you eternal life, then suddenly they DONT NEED evidence!)

* to hate, kill, and judge others who dont share the same beliefs and lifestyles. e.g. issues like homosexuals and marriage, suicide bombers killing infidels, killing abortion doctors, hating jews

* to accept non-answers about our existence like "if it can't be explained, god must have done it" and "his ways are higher than our ways, we can never possibly understand why". we would still be living in the stone age with no computers, no medicine, no machines, no advanced technology whatsoever if everyone still thought like that.

> Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another.

"Person TKP", is it an illusion that you are a man? that you have a penis? is it an illusion that somebody raping your sister is a bad thing? is it an illusion that the world trade center was destroyed along with thousands of lives? is it an illusion that surgeons can give women artificially larger breasts? is it an illusion that you can open a web browser and talk with someone on the other side of the planet in real time?

scientific claims CAN be tested and PROVED with a high level of accuracy by several independent parties. this is HOW we have the technology that we do: medicine, computers, skyscrapers, telecommunications, etc! some religions make scientific claims and can be disproved using the scientific method, religions like christianity, islam, judaism, all based on the old testament which claims that homo sapiens began 6-7000 years ago and that there was a global flood that wiped out every living thing except some people on a boat about 4-5000 years ago.

the old testament also teaches such irrational, inhumane and destructive and, in religious terms, "evil" things like that homosexuals are evil, that genocide, stoning children and raping women is justifiable.

steve hassan and the mind control BITE model

What is "mind control?" Is all "mind control" bad?

My mind control model outlines many key elements that need to be controlled: Behavior, Information, Thoughts and Emotions (BITE). If these four components can be controlled, then an individual's identity can be systematically manipulated and changed.
...The person is systematically deceived about the beliefs and practices of the person (or group) and manipulated throughout the recruitment process...The person's identity is profoundly influenced through a set of social influence techniques and a "new identity" is created- programmed to be dependent on the leader or group ideology...The cult system reinforces an "illusion of control."

JESUS this looks familiar! =)

margaret singer - on cults

cults: dr. margaret singer speaks at a conference
11:56 cultic relationships are those relationships in which a person intentionally induces others to become totally or nearly totally dependent on him or her for almost all major life decisions and inculcates in these followers a belief that he or she has some special talent, gift or knowledge.

boy that sure fits joseph smith and the mormon church to the T!

13:15 the term cult refers to the political and power structure

13:28 our first amendment absolutely protects freedom of belief. our first amendment does not say that, in the pursuit of that, you can go do any old conduct. the law that applies to each of us applies to cult leaders and cult followers as far as conduct goes.

14:16 cult leaders are self-appointed persons who claim to have a special mission or special knowledge in life

14:36 cult leaders tend to be charismatic. if you aren't a little bit charismatic, it's awfully hard to get a following... it helps to be determined and it helps to be domineering...and [have] a low conscience level.

15:58 cults in the modern day sense basically have two purposes: recruiting new members and fundraising

17:04 cults are elitist organizations. all of the cults that i've studied of the modern day ones have the attitude that once you join you're one of the elite.

19:30 cults are authoritarian in their power structure, they tend to be totalitarian and totalistic in the control of the behavior of their members.

20:38 their way is the only way

22:15 most of us in psychology and psychiatry are not interested very much at all in the content of the belief systems. what we're interested in is the packaging of the influence techniques, in what we're coming to call "coordinated programs of coercive influence and behavior control"

29:51 6 conditions, if you have them present, you have a good chance of being able to conduct a thought reform program.

the first thing you need to do is get control of the person's time. you don't have to have them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but try to get control over their time.

two, create a sense of powerlessness in them, so that when they're at your group, they hear people talking in certain ways and they don't know what the words mean, but most of the people present seem to. so that the new persons into the group want to become like the rest of the group. those of us that are social creatures really want to have group connections. we want to get some warmth and acceptance from other human beings. so if you're at a meeting like this you hear new terms and you ask what they are because you want to be able to go home and read and understand more and follow what's going on.

so if you're going to do the standard conditions, first, get control over the person's time. two, create a sense of powerlessness in the person. then by manipulating, rewards, punishments and experiences, you start inhibiting and suppressing the old social behavior that the person brought with them and you start by eliciting the new behavior that you want the people to show. you have to do it in a closed system of logic where there are no complaints from the underlings; it's all from the top down; and the final critical thing is: people must be unaware that they're being moved through a program whose goal it is to make them deployable agents of management. that means in the end you'll buy courses, you'll sign up for the duration with the cult leader. you don't know it at the beginning. there has to be this special uninformed state.

people are always saying to me "well, isn't that how it is when you go off to be a jesuit? isn't that how it is when you go off to join the marine corp?" and the answer is "no". you know when you go to the marine corp, you may not know how muddy it's going to be and exactly what drill seargents are going to be like. and when you join the jesuits you don't know how hard it may be in the end to wrestle with your own human conscience and your own human mind, but you know ahead of time and they have a long period and i swear, somebody should make me an honorary jesuit or an honorary marine corp person because every time i testify in court i have to defend these organizations as not being mind controlling and thought reform organizations and i have a great long list of how they differ and especially i have to have a great long list for the marine corp because there are always a bunch of people present that have not been in the military and think that it's a horrible place that brainwashes people. no, it's an indoctrination program for the military and you know what it is when you're going. the recruiting officer doesn't have on a dress and pretend he's a sister of mercy. you know what you're joining and that it's rough

1) the lds church sure has control of their members' time:
meetings during the week
meetings on sunday
home teaching/visiting teaching
cleaning the church
going to the temple
morning/afternoon seminary
events, activities
service projects
missionary work, members on splits with missionaries
open houses
devotionals, firesides (evenings in someone's home or at the church where a guest speaker speaks about a particular topic)
ward, stake and general conferences
leadership training meetings
scripture reading every day
family home evening
various callings like working in the geneological center or serving at the temple as a veil worker or patron/helper

2) the lds church has so many new vocabulary words and concepts that non/new-members have never heard before--their own religious language really

3) the church totally suppresses old social behavior and is VERY conformist! there are dress codes, ways of speaking and ways NOT to speak

43:03 the discrepency between the followers' standard of living and that of the cult leader. remember these programs change an individual a step at a time. and the leaders have ways of rationalizing and usually the way they rationalize that they live in such style and glory is because they've gotten the followers to believe that the outside world and their parents and their old life is a corrupt and venal and evil group. they say that the leader has to deal with these bad and evil people in the outside world who only respect money and jewels and silk clothing, so that at a step at a time people have become made dependent on the leader, they come to accept a step at a time his or her philosophy and then a step at a time they come to literally push their old conscience--and because they're so dependent upon the organization, that they're taught that negativity is wrong. you can't run a cult and let people complain to management, it's just very difficult... the cult leader, in order to deal with these outside people has to look like a successful and powerful person.

the church leaders in their nice suits, throwing huge banquets for other leaders on the outside, inviting them to their huge, spacious, expensive buildings. their church office building offices and bathrooms are decked out with expensive woods and marble, etc.

46:09 i've interviewed a large number of people who have left some of the major cults as well as small cults. some of them were totally aware that it was a corrupt leader. they knew he was having sexual hanky panky with the teenage children of the followers, they knew a lot of the underside and the shady side of the cult leader, but at that point, usually they were so dependent that they stayed even though they knew it. some of them, when they discovered it and their old conscience flashed back to the center of their thinking, they left.... the people at the top are really a mixed bag.... it's like any great big business enterprise: some are going to know and some aren't.

the reason that those in the lds church don't quit: they're too dependent, they're locked in, their social/family life would be deeply affected

53:16 those are called a hook. those of you who are in sales know you have to have a hook to get a person to look at the merchandise. sometimes the hook is taking yoga lessons, sometimes it's a free meditation lesson, sometimes a free massage lesson, health food lectures, any kind of an introductory thing and then the group tries to recruit out of those who do show an interest.

like the lds church missionaries offering english classes or playing sports (teaching american sports, etc) or doing service or young adult programs where they ask the youth to bring a friend.