General religious discussion thread

[Chaos he/him]

On 5/9/2025 at 10:12 AM, FRENZEE said:

I would like to correct myself here. It is not 3 days, but instead just 3 hours. 

I also have a question. What do you believe the book of Mormon was, and how did It come to be?

Hi Frenzee, you absolutely don't have to respond to me responding to you, of course, but you did make many claims and directly addressed me. Do you believe I still have faith after what I said? If so, what do I have faith in, in the way that you believe in things?

[-ACE- he/him]

On 4/29/2025 at 8:26 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

General opinion question: what is the purpose of religion?

The purpose of religion I believe is for man to believe in a mightier power. Someone or something better then they are. Someone perfect. Someone that gives them hope.

On 5/9/2025 at 9:07 PM, ParaTulip said:

Same way William Blake created his mythology: Humans just sometimes hallucinate wild stuff.

According to Scripture central (That is the page I got this from) "Not one, but three ancient altars inscribed with the same three Semitic consonants of the place-name, Nahom, as mentioned in 1 Nephi 16:34. Never mind the lack of vowels in the Hebrew alphabet that might alter the pronunciation: “Ni-ham,” “Nu-heem,” “Nehum”. The coincidence remains staggering. Not only are these altars found in the right place, they date to the right time. If that’s not enough, Nahom itself appears associated with the Hebrew word for “mourning”, which is precisely why the Lehites were there."

Another quote from the same page: "No one in Joseph Smith’s time could have pointed to any Native American cement wall or fountain. B. H. Roberts wrote a letter in 1932 citing a few sources for cement work that pre-dated the Book of Mormon’s publication, but this information was highly obscure until the middle of the 20th century. Employing the word “cement” was cited as anachronistic proof of the Book of Mormon’s fabrication.

Once again, patience transformed this into a non-issue. Not only have cement structures been identified throughout Mesoamerica, but as Dr. John Sorenson noted, “The first-century-BC appearance of cement in the Book of Mormon agrees strikingly with the archaeology of central Mexico.” Dr. John W. Welch pointed out that no archeologist in 1829 could have known how accurately the dating of this technological adaptation correlated with what was happening on the ground."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another quote, this time from Faith Matters "By the mid-twentieth century, defenders of the Book of Mormon had shifted their focus to internal evidences of the scripture’s antiquity. Hugh Nibley did extensive work in this regard, asserting ancient parallels with many components of the Book of Mormon text, including middle eastern execution practices and coronation rituals. He also points to rhythms and forms evocative of Arabic poetry of the desert."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last quote I will make on this post, from LDS living: "It is obvious from reading Jacob 5 that Zenos had considerable knowledge of the very complicated process of olive cultivation. Scholars Paul R. Cheesman and C. Wilfred Griggs both comment on “the numerous casual references to pruning, cultivating, fertilizing, grafting, preserving species by grafting, bud sprouts, scion vigor, root rejuvenation, double graftage, root-top growth balances, and invigoration from graftage of wild species” that make this chapter so in-depth and compelling (Scriptures for the Modern World [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1984], 119).

Honestly, think about it. Could Joseph Smith, who had only three years of formal schooling, have been acquainted enough with ancient horticultural practices to write the allegory of the olive tree, with all its detailed description? Not likely."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For my personal reasoning behind why I believe the book of Mormon to be truth, Joseph Smith was a farmer boy, only 14 when he claimed he had his first vision of God. Just 10 years later the book of Mormon was published. Keep in mind, Joseph Smith was illiterate, and even non believers said so. How would an illiterate teenager write one of the most controversial modern day books with out the assistance of God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 5/13/2025 at 10:57 AM, Chaos said:

Hi Frenzee, you absolutely don't have to respond to me responding to you, of course, but you did make many claims and directly addressed me. Do you believe I still have faith after what I said? If so, what do I have faith in, in the way that you believe in things?

To be honest, I didn't read your post at first. It was extremely long, and I saw that at the end you said you would be done on this forum. But I did read it, and I think that most of the points you made are certainly valid. I agree with you, that I have questions I want answered, and that if the proper evidence is shown, then I will believe it to be true. The only problem I have with this is that I need a lot of evidence to stop believing in a God, because I have evidence to support the fact that there is a God. Could I be wrong? Yes. Is it possible that my life ends when I die and I have no spirit? Yes. Do I want to believe it? No. 

This could be influencing me more then I wish to say. I want to believe that I will not be gone forever when I die. I want to think that my life has a purpose. But I am not completely sure. I have doubted myself many times, and some of the points you have made make me doubt even more, but I have decided that even it all the things you say are true, even if there is no God, no afterlife, my religion helps me live better. Even if my life has no purpose, I am enjoying my life, and I have a very promising life, that is only benefited my my beliefs in God's law. 

Edited May 16, 2025 by FRENZEE
Changing dividers to fit text box

[Chaos he/him]

6 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

To be honest, I didn't read your post at first. It was extremely long, and I saw that at the end you said you would be done on this forum. But I did read it, and I think that most of the points you made are certainly valid. I agree with you, that I have questions I want answered, and that if the proper evidence is shown, then I will believe it to be true. The only problem I have with this is that I need a lot of evidence to stop believing in a God, because I have evidence to support the fact that there is a God. Could I be wrong? Yes. Is it possible that my life ends when I die and I have no spirit? Yes. Do I want to believe it? No. 

This could be influencing me more then I wish to say. I want to believe that I will not be gone forever when I die. I want to think that my life has a purpose. But I am not completely sure. I have doubted myself many times, and some of the points you have made make me doubt even more, but I have decided that even it all the things you say are true, even if there is no God, no afterlife, my religion helps me live better. Even if my life has no purpose, I am enjoying my life, and I have a very promising life, that is only benefited my my beliefs in God's law. 

Thanks for reading it! Sorry it was so long. 

And hey, if you think the evidence suffices, awesome! In my experience, what people want to believe has an immense influence on this all. The truth is true regardless on if we believe it, after all. But if you find it compelling outside your desire for it to be true, excellent!

As for me, I would love any evidence of the supernatural that is outside psychology. (Unfortunately, "people being transformed" into something better is something that's common in so many denominations/religions/self help books, which to me smells more like psychology.)

Cheers  

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

General question: as someone who has many very religious friends I appreciate the community and support they have so it got me thinking what about religion specifically brings people together bc there are other groups of people that have a community that isn’t religious but it seems that religious communities are always the biggest 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

@FRENZEE, I am not going to engage with the archeology stuff. I have very little background on the history of knowing who knew what about where in the 19th century America. I have simply never taken too keen of an interest in such. I have a small interest in the Aztec myths around Tzecatlipoca, but that's a different matter.

I will say that the stuff about olives reminds me of people who believe that Shakespeare's works were not written by someone with the biography of William Shakespeare, supposing that he was either a noble who hid his status due to the recent War of the Roses or his works were actually composed by someone else. Either way, people can just learn about things even if they are not getting formal education. Or Smith happened to live near someone trying to grow olives. They are pretty widely cultivated. Olive oil is good stuff.

10 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

This could be influencing me more then I wish to say. I want to believe that I will not be gone forever when I die. I want to think that my life has a purpose.

This is what makes religion something that irks me. What is good in people, to me, is that we are each unique and we are each transient things. We are like flickering flames against an infinite dark, all the more wonderful to watch for that we will snuff out and never come again. But then religions like Christianity, Islam, and Pure-Land Buddhism come and smother this. They suppose the lives we live are mere preparation for something else, that the point of life is not even found in death, but in more life beyond death. All people are to be given over to a single purpose, and in such they surrender so much of their true ability to be unique by will.

If you want your life to have a purpose, then choose one and pursue it. If you want your spirit to linger, live such that a great many people will recall your life. Gilgamesh is still with us because the idea of that most ancient hero is still understood.

Religion acts so much like opium in this. By the same means that it removes the pains of fearing death or the dread of being faced with the freedom to choose but one way to live our lives (this second idea is well formed by Jean Paul Sartre), it also removes the ability to seize upon the finite time we have in life. Worse still, like opiates, it tends to threaten those who attempt cessation with all manors of new pains and agonies in withdrawal, both in the threat of hell but also in the form of whatever social punishment is put upon apostates.

 

6 hours ago, Heřãłðøfľõvê said:

what about religion specifically brings people together bc there are other groups of people that have a community that isn’t religious but it seems that religious communities are always the biggest

Where, vaguely, do you live? What sort of religious community are you thinking of? Where I am, I would imagine that there are communities around attending music concerts that are larger than the average church congregation, since Philadelphia has a strong live music scene and also the churches tend to be on the smaller side.

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

2 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

@FRENZEE, I am not going to engage with the archeology stuff. I have very little background on the history of knowing who knew what about where in the 19th century America. I have simply never taken too keen of an interest in such. I have a small interest in the Aztec myths around Tzecatlipoca, but that's a different matter.

I will say that the stuff about olives reminds me of people who believe that Shakespeare's works were not written by someone with the biography of William Shakespeare, supposing that he was either a noble who hid his status due to the recent War of the Roses or his works were actually composed by someone else. Either way, people can just learn about things even if they are not getting formal education. Or Smith happened to live near someone trying to grow olives. They are pretty widely cultivated. Olive oil is good stuff.

This is what makes religion something that irks me. What is good in people, to me, is that we are each unique and we are each transient things. We are like flickering flames against an infinite dark, all the more wonderful to watch for that we will snuff out and never come again. But then religions like Christianity, Islam, and Pure-Land Buddhism come and smother this. They suppose the lives we live are mere preparation for something else, that the point of life is not even found in death, but in more life beyond death. All people are to be given over to a single purpose, and in such they surrender so much of their true ability to be unique by will.

If you want your life to have a purpose, then choose one and pursue it. If you want your spirit to linger, live such that a great many people will recall your life. Gilgamesh is still with us because the idea of that most ancient hero is still understood.

Religion acts so much like opium in this. By the same means that it removes the pains of fearing death or the dread of being faced with the freedom to choose but one way to live our lives (this second idea is well formed by Jean Paul Sartre), it also removes the ability to seize upon the finite time we have in life. Worse still, like opiates, it tends to threaten those who attempt cessation with all manors of new pains and agonies in withdrawal, both in the threat of hell but also in the form of whatever social punishment is put upon apostates.

 

Where, vaguely, do you live? What sort of religious community are you thinking of? Where I am, I would imagine that there are communities around attending music concerts that are larger than the average church congregation, since Philadelphia has a strong live music scene and also the churches tend to be on the smaller side.

I live in central Arkansas which is a area with not a whole lot of stuff like that there is plenty up north of where I am

[-ACE- he/him]

On 5/14/2025 at 3:15 AM, ParaTulip said:

I will say that the stuff about olives reminds me of people who believe that Shakespeare's works were not written by someone with the biography of William Shakespeare, supposing that he was either a noble who hid his status due to the recent War of the Roses or his works were actually composed by someone else. Either way, people can just learn about things even if they are not getting formal education. Or Smith happened to live near someone trying to grow olives. They are pretty widely cultivated. Olive oil is good stuff.

This is what makes religion something that irks me. What is good in people, to me, is that we are each unique and we are each transient things. We are like flickering flames against an infinite dark, all the more wonderful to watch for that we will snuff out and never come again. But then religions like Christianity, Islam, and Pure-Land Buddhism come and smother this. They suppose the lives we live are mere preparation for something else, that the point of life is not even found in death, but in more life beyond death. All people are to be given over to a single purpose, and in such they surrender so much of their true ability to be unique by will.

If you want your life to have a purpose, then choose one and pursue it. If you want your spirit to linger, live such that a great many people will recall your life. Gilgamesh is still with us because the idea of that most ancient hero is still understood.

Religion acts so much like opium in this. By the same means that it removes the pains of fearing death or the dread of being faced with the freedom to choose but one way to live our lives (this second idea is well formed by Jean Paul Sartre), it also removes the ability to seize upon the finite time we have in life. Worse still, like opiates, it tends to threaten those who attempt cessation with all manors of new pains and agonies in withdrawal, both in the threat of hell but also in the form of whatever social punishment is put upon apostates.

Other then the olives and you evading my questions about the archaeology, you kinda evaded my questions meant for you. Your biggest reply was a part of my message meant for Chaos, on a different sub-topic. once you respond to mine, I will respond to yours.

On 5/13/2025 at 8:59 PM, Heřãłðøfľõvê said:

General question: as someone who has many very religious friends I appreciate the community and support they have so it got me thinking what about religion specifically brings people together bc there are other groups of people that have a community that isn’t religious but it seems that religious communities are always the biggest 

people who believe in similar things and have generally the same values I think. Unless you are talking about member quantity. Then it's similar, but more cuz they want to be more exposed and enriched by/to things they agree with. 

On 5/14/2025 at 3:15 AM, ParaTulip said:

@FRENZEE, I am not going to engage with the archeology stuff. I have very little background on the history of knowing who knew what about where in the 19th century America. I have simply never taken too keen of an interest in such. I have a small interest in the Aztec myths around Tzecatlipoca, but that's a different matter.

Also, I too have never been interested in archaeology other then a few minutes before I posted that reply.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 5/13/2025 at 4:37 PM, FRENZEE said:

How would an illiterate teenager write one of the most controversial modern day books with out the assistance of God?

Okay, so this is your question?

I don't think this is the right way to view the text becoming controversial. Smith's group became such a controversy because of how they clashed with their neighbors and yet went on to colonize what is now Utah, ensuring the group's continued exstancy. That and Smith got up to the classic new religious movement behavior thing of having intimate relationships with young women. This happened with a bunch of reformation era figures too.

As for how an illiterate person could craft such a narrative, it's not like storytelling is a skill only found in literate cultures. I am willing to accept that Joseph Smith was as sincere in believing that he thought his ideas came from a supernatural source as William Blake, the Prophet Muhammad, or Siddhartha Gautama, but that doesn't mean I believe any of them to be right. While the historicity of the claims of the blind poet Homer originating the epic cycle of the Trojan war are dubious, it's generally believed that the whole 10 part cycle was transmitted orally for a long time before ever being written down, meaning that it's creator too was without the written word. This doesn't mean actual divine muses gave the stories to their author, right?

Also, if you mean "literally how did his ideas end up on a page" I thought it was common knowledge that he had a scribe? Like, even as someone with little particular interest in these details, I had heard this.

[-ACE- he/him]

6 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Okay, so this is your question?

I don't think this is the right way to view the text becoming controversial. Smith's group became such a controversy because of how they clashed with their neighbors and yet went on to colonize what is now Utah, ensuring the group's continued exstancy. That and Smith got up to the classic new religious movement behavior thing of having intimate relationships with young women. This happened with a bunch of reformation era figures too.

Joseph Smith did not clash with his neighbors, other then to teach his doctrine. His neighbors and others in the state pushed him out for teaching his doctrine, so the church eventually moved to Utah, but not before Joseph was killed by a mob. 

6 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

As for how an illiterate person could craft such a narrative, it's not like storytelling is a skill only found in literate cultures. I am willing to accept that Joseph Smith was as sincere in believing that he thought his ideas came from a supernatural source as William Blake, the Prophet Muhammad, or Siddhartha Gautama, but that doesn't mean I believe any of them to be right. While the historicity of the claims of the blind poet Homer originating the epic cycle of the Trojan war are dubious, it's generally believed that the whole 10 part cycle was transmitted orally for a long time before ever being written down, meaning that it's creator too was without the written word. This doesn't mean actual divine muses gave the stories to their author, right?

Storytelling is found in illiterate cultures, but not writing of an entire new doctrine. And besides, the book of Mormon was over 700 pages. Not something any average illiterate could come up with.

6 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Also, if you mean "literally how did his ideas end up on a page" I thought it was common knowledge that he had a scribe? Like, even as someone with little particular interest in these details, I had heard this.

I knew he had a scribe. Oliver Cowdery. But I did not mean how the words were written. I meant how they were thought up.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

13 hours ago, FRENZEE said:

Not something any average illiterate could come up with.

Then he was a remarkably creative person, just like the authors of the Iliad and Oddesy. Those stories are really long, with lots of characters and they are regarded as foundations for the entire tradition of literature in Europe. Their authorsseemingly composed them and passed them down for generations without writing.

I actually had been told that Muhammad was illiterate and that was seen as a sign of the divine inspiration of the Koran, but apparently that's disputed.

I know that our modern society. where literacy is assumed to be something every intelligent person posseses, gives the impression that illetarate people are mentally defective, but the truth is that many creative and intelligent people are simply not afforded the opportunity to learn.

Furthermore, I am reminded of the work of Plato, Phaedrus, and of some idea from Nietzsche, on the importance of forgetting. In the former, there is a point made by Socrates that writing has changed, and perhaps in some ways impaired, the way people learn things. If you have ever been made to memorize a poem or learn lines in a play, you might understand what Socrates meant by this. When information is held solely in the mind, rather than being able to be accessed from a page, it is able to become part of how someone thinks. I think most students find memorizing things tedious, since we have come to be so used to our cybrog brains that store memories outside themselves and can devices to perform computation, but what we miss in this is that the taking into the self of these patterns changes how we think. Consider the history of China, where government officials were expected to memorize notable works by Confucius and scholars of his ideas, and were tested by exams. The effect of this process were to make the officials have the thought processes which were believed to be desirable for a stable government. But on the other hand, being too ladden with memory is like being chained down. Neitzsche saw in those who knew less the profound ability to think in new ways, because they were not falling back on prior ideas. To see this another way, a person who travels through woods without being told the way makes a new way.

Combining these notions, someone who was illiterate, but who still came to know some amount of Christian Scripture, would be the exact kind of person who would produce a highly novel addition to it to the canon. Such a person would not think to reach into the centuries long discourses of theologians for answers to their feelings of wrongness with the existing narratives.

Also, Smith was involved in protestant Christianity before starting his own church. He would have had a basis to iterate upon from that.

[-ACE- he/him]

 

On 5/16/2025 at 9:23 PM, ParaTulip said:

Then he was a remarkably creative person, just like the authors of the Iliad and Oddesy. Those stories are really long, with lots of characters and they are regarded as foundations for the entire tradition of literature in Europe. Their authorsseemingly composed them and passed them down for generations without writing.

I actually had been told that Muhammad was illiterate and that was seen as a sign of the divine inspiration of the Koran, but apparently that's disputed.

I know that our modern society. where literacy is assumed to be something every intelligent person posseses, gives the impression that illetarate people are mentally defective, but the truth is that many creative and intelligent people are simply not afforded the opportunity to learn.

Furthermore, I am reminded of the work of Plato, Phaedrus, and of some idea from Nietzsche, on the importance of forgetting. In the former, there is a point made by Socrates that writing has changed, and perhaps in some ways impaired, the way people learn things. If you have ever been made to memorize a poem or learn lines in a play, you might understand what Socrates meant by this. When information is held solely in the mind, rather than being able to be accessed from a page, it is able to become part of how someone thinks. I think most students find memorizing things tedious, since we have come to be so used to our cybrog brains that store memories outside themselves and can devices to perform computation, but what we miss in this is that the taking into the self of these patterns changes how we think. Consider the history of China, where government officials were expected to memorize notable works by Confucius and scholars of his ideas, and were tested by exams. The effect of this process were to make the officials have the thought processes which were believed to be desirable for a stable government. But on the other hand, being too ladden with memory is like being chained down. Neitzsche saw in those who knew less the profound ability to think in new ways, because they were not falling back on prior ideas. To see this another way, a person who travels through woods without being told the way makes a new way.

Combining these notions, someone who was illiterate, but who still came to know some amount of Christian Scripture, would be the exact kind of person who would produce a highly novel addition to it to the canon. Such a person would not think to reach into the centuries long discourses of theologians for answers to their feelings of wrongness with the existing narratives.

Also, Smith was involved in protestant Christianity before starting his own church. He would have had a basis to iterate upon from that.

Sorry I haven't replied to this, I honestly don't much care to read it, and you were dismissing most of the things I said or answering them with no evidence to support your side. and some of the things you said about Joseph Smith were completely false.

I am going to be done posting on this thread unless anyone has questions about the LDS church or Christianity. (I will not debate or argue with anyone. If someone starts to I will start to ignore their posts.)

[Duxredux he/him]

On 5/16/2025 at 9:23 PM, ParaTulip said:

Then he was a remarkably creative person, just like the authors of the Iliad and Oddesy. Those stories are really long, with lots of characters and they are regarded as foundations for the entire tradition of literature in Europe. Their authorsseemingly composed them and passed them down for generations without writing.

I actually had been told that Muhammad was illiterate and that was seen as a sign of the divine inspiration of the Koran, but apparently that's disputed.

I know that our modern society. where literacy is assumed to be something every intelligent person posseses, gives the impression that illetarate people are mentally defective, but the truth is that many creative and intelligent people are simply not afforded the opportunity to learn.

Furthermore, I am reminded of the work of Plato, Phaedrus, and of some idea from Nietzsche, on the importance of forgetting. In the former, there is a point made by Socrates that writing has changed, and perhaps in some ways impaired, the way people learn things. If you have ever been made to memorize a poem or learn lines in a play, you might understand what Socrates meant by this. When information is held solely in the mind, rather than being able to be accessed from a page, it is able to become part of how someone thinks. I think most students find memorizing things tedious, since we have come to be so used to our cybrog brains that store memories outside themselves and can devices to perform computation, but what we miss in this is that the taking into the self of these patterns changes how we think. Consider the history of China, where government officials were expected to memorize notable works by Confucius and scholars of his ideas, and were tested by exams. The effect of this process were to make the officials have the thought processes which were believed to be desirable for a stable government. But on the other hand, being too ladden with memory is like being chained down. Neitzsche saw in those who knew less the profound ability to think in new ways, because they were not falling back on prior ideas. To see this another way, a person who travels through woods without being told the way makes a new way.

Combining these notions, someone who was illiterate, but who still came to know some amount of Christian Scripture, would be the exact kind of person who would produce a highly novel addition to it to the canon. Such a person would not think to reach into the centuries long discourses of theologians for answers to their feelings of wrongness with the existing narratives.

Also, Smith was involved in protestant Christianity before starting his own church. He would have had a basis to iterate upon from that.

Not an novel hypothesis, that Joseph Smith was a genius storyteller. How much leg work are you willing to do to back it up?

In the first chapter and page the author states that he is writing with a Jewish education in Egyptian. I would expect the syntax structure to reflect this. What do professional linguists have to say about the Book of Mormon when it claims to have been written in Egyptian? As a starting point, the general consensus is that the modern Bible was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Similarly, we get a time stamp on how this links into Old Testament chronology when the author says that Zedekiah was king of Judah at the time, also on the first page once the narrative begins. That gives us a route to see if the literary style fits that time period. Considering the bold claims, why not ask a Semitic scholar?

We could even take a look at how long it takes someone to write derivative work. Joseph Smith purportedly translated with divine assistance the 500+ pages of the Book of Mormon (not quite 270,000 words) in a 3-month time frame with publication starting 7 months after that. Why not see how that compares to Brandon picking up The Wheel of Time and writing The Gathering Storm which has a 290,000 word count? No two writing experiences will be the same, but Brandon was a Robert Jordan fan and was trying to create a work that fit in with an existing canon, so there are parallels.

The Book of Mormon has been around for 195 years. Making up a thousand years of history and passing it off as non-fiction is monumentally harder than you are implying, not least when the first page after the introductory material states the supposed historical, linguistic, and cultural origin. Please don't insult nearly two centuries of people who have seriously read and examined it page by page seeking to prove or discredit its claims to not once have done their backchecking and homework. 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

6 hours ago, Duxredux said:

Please don't insult nearly two centuries of people who have seriously read and examined it page by page seeking to prove or discredit its claims to not once have done their backchecking and homework. 

Yeah, I am good. I am not so invested in being some kind of anti to the LDS movement that I would want to do a master's degree worth of work about it.

This is an intellectual passtime for me on a web forum.

I have some passion for my own ideas, as you clearly do yours, but I am content with noting the gaps I see in the assumptions of religion while trying to remain polite. There's a nice tension to it.

If I was going to put that much work into understanding the hermeneutics of a text, I would probably do it for something more distant to the USA like taoism, the vedic traditions, or Islam. Seems to me like I would experience more distinct ideas that way.

Edited June 6, 2025 by ParaTulip
changed the way I refer to the LDS.

[___ He/Him]

Hello! I haven't really ever been in any of these kinds of threads before, but I thought it looked interesting.

I'm a Scientologist, and I have been my whole life. It's made me the person who I am, and I'm happy.

On 4/29/2025 at 10:26 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

General opinion question: what is the purpose of religion?

I saw this question, and I wanted to answer how I feel. It's simple in my opinion.

To be a better person. In any and all contexts.

[Hmmm lies she/her]

I've been an atheist all my life, for a myriad of reasons. (Wasn't raised religious, learned about mythology from an early age) However, I think my agnosticism is far more interesting.

I try and use logical proposals to explain my beliefs. For example, I might make the following argument against religions with an omnipotent God.

A. If an omnipotent God exists, than omnipotence is something that can exist.

B. If omnipotence is something that can exist, than literally anything is possible

C. If anything is possible, then there is a non-zero chance that all religions are false, and misinformation created by a malevolent omnipotent entity

D. If anything is possible, then there is no way that any given religion is, without a doubt, false or true.

E. If anything is possible, then it is possible that any omnipotent entities are not able to be comprehended by humans, and therefore could not be the subject of any existing religions

F. There are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions

G. If there are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions, then it is infinitely more likely that reality is not correctly described by any existing religions.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Ookla the Game Master

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

I've been an atheist all my life, for a myriad of reasons. (Wasn't raised religious, learned about mythology from an early age) However, I think my agnosticism is far more interesting.

I try and use logical proposals to explain my beliefs. For example, I might make the following argument against religions with an omnipotent God.

A. If an omnipotent God exists, than omnipotence is something that can exist.

B. If omnipotence is something that can exist, than literally anything is possible

C. If anything is possible, then there is a non-zero chance that all religions are false, and misinformation created by a malevolent omnipotent entity

D. If anything is possible, then there is no way that any given religion is, without a doubt, false or true.

E. If anything is possible, then it is possible that any omnipotent entities are not able to be comprehended by humans, and therefore could not be the subject of any existing religions

F. There are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions

G. If there are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions, then it is infinitely more likely that reality is not correctly described by any existing religions.

…

I don’t know whether to be offended or amused

Yeah I’m repping it

heres my counter anyways not trying to argue tho

Spoiler

(Also that sounds like saying you don’t like presents cuz they might have bombs in them) [juuuust saying] {continuing with the present analogy, when you get a present, there can be anything in them. There are a lot more bad possibilities than the perfect present, which means that the present must be bad}

I also think there are differences in what I think the purpose of religion is and what you think the purpose of religion is

 

 

 

ANYWAYS GUYS

if u cudnt tell I’m religious

Edited December 9, 2025 by Ookla the Ansible

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

I’ve thought a lot about this recently and I honestly think if someone presented definitive proof that a god existed I still wouldn’t worship them just bc I think I want to be my own person bc that’s who I want to not bc some dude in the sky told me to be that person.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 minute ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

I’ve thought a lot about this recently and I honestly think if someone presented definitive proof that a god existed I still wouldn’t worship them just bc I think I want to be my own person bc that’s who I want to not bc some dude in the sky told me to be that person.

Hhhmmmm

(I want to preface this by saying that I’m a little salty cuz someone at school called all religions cults and that’s what theyd been researching the entire semester for their capstone project)

again, I think you are mistaking the purpose of religion

people are going to dislike me for saying this, but religion for me isn’t about following rules

its about being happy

ya know? I think on the other side of the coin you presented, I would still have religion without any proof or personal witness

I think life without an afterlife is just depressing

and who cares if it’s false hope. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy so I’m happy.

 

I have other things to say but I don’t want to like

seem like I’m trying to “convert”

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

4 minutes ago, Ookla the Ansible said:

Hhhmmmm

(I want to preface this by saying that I’m a little salty cuz someone at school called all religions cults and that’s what theyd been researching the entire semester for their capstone project)

again, I think you are mistaking the purpose of religion

people are going to dislike me for saying this, but religion for me isn’t about following rules

its about being happy

ya know? I think on the other side of the coin you presented, I would still have religion without any proof or personal witness

I think life without an afterlife is just depressing

and who cares if it’s false hope. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy so I’m happy.

 

I have other things to say but I don’t want to like

seem like I’m trying to “convert”

You can say it and I think that’s a fair point I’m not arguing for people to not be religious 

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

39 minutes ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

You can say it and I think that’s a fair point I’m not arguing for people to not be religious 

Yeah

ik

im salty at SOMEONE ELSE

and I couldn’t tell them

“bro don’t say that”

cuz they were giving their final presentation 

 

Spoiler

Okay okay okay

So

preface

Later Day Saint beliefs are very different from most

Namely, we don’t believe in heck, not as it’s presented by other Christian religions

And then note about Christianity in general (I actually don’t know if this part of the Atonement exclusive to us tho I should get more religion literate). We believe that Christ felt every feeling anyone’s ever felt - individually, and in context.

So what we believe is that because he did this, he knows perfectly how to counsel/comfort us when we need comfort. [hmm this opens up a debate about free will but if you wanna talk about that go read Licanius]

And so we believe that following these ideals/guides aren’t to prove some sort of point or prove that you’re a good person, it’s to become the best version of yourself you can be, and in the end to be happy. I want to be careful with this, because as that argument is rn, it can be interpreted as “to be happy you can’t be LGBTQ” (as well as some more negative interpretations), which isn’t what i mean at all. I do think, right now, inclusion is a very big problem with religion that im not really sure how to… deal with.

And then the rest is me justifying my reasons for continuing with religion despite this, feels a bit more “convert”-y. Aint actually part of my discussion just if you’re curious why *shrug*

Spoiler

So like I am really uncomfortable with a few glaring issues in church organizations. I used to not be able to say that, but I am

But problems in the way the church (the organization) is organized shouldn’t change how I feel about the core ideas of the gospel (the ideas behind the organization). Because I have been helped in times of hurt, and I don’t want to invalidate that.

Another reason I continue is that our church believes in continual revelation. Whereas with other denominational churches that are stuck with outdated ideas, our religion has the ability to change and has been doing so

anyways that’s my more controversial opinions

 

 

Edited December 9, 2025 by Ookla the Ansible

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

5 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

I've been an atheist all my life, for a myriad of reasons. (Wasn't raised religious, learned about mythology from an early age) However, I think my agnosticism is far more interesting.

I try and use logical proposals to explain my beliefs. For example, I might make the following argument against religions with an omnipotent God.

A. If an omnipotent God exists, than omnipotence is something that can exist.

B. If omnipotence is something that can exist, than literally anything is possible

C. If anything is possible, then there is a non-zero chance that all religions are false, and misinformation created by a malevolent omnipotent entity

D. If anything is possible, then there is no way that any given religion is, without a doubt, false or true.

E. If anything is possible, then it is possible that any omnipotent entities are not able to be comprehended by humans, and therefore could not be the subject of any existing religions

F. There are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions

G. If there are infinitely more possibilities than existing religions, then it is infinitely more likely that reality is not correctly described by any existing religions.

I could not agree more, but i kinda just take the easy way out and say 'im agnostic which means i think god might exist or might not, but i dont care im just gonna go be a good person'

2 hours ago, Ookla the Ansible said:

Hhhmmmm

(I want to preface this by saying that I’m a little salty cuz someone at school called all religions cults and that’s what theyd been researching the entire semester for their capstone project)

again, I think you are mistaking the purpose of religion

people are going to dislike me for saying this, but religion for me isn’t about following rules

its about being happy

ya know? I think on the other side of the coin you presented, I would still have religion without any proof or personal witness

I think life without an afterlife is just depressing

and who cares if it’s false hope. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy so I’m happy.

 

I have other things to say but I don’t want to like

seem like I’m trying to “convert”

2 hours ago, Ookla the Ansible said:

Yeah

ik

im salty at SOMEONE ELSE

and I couldn’t tell them

“bro don’t say that”

cuz they were giving their final presentation 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Okay okay okay

So

preface

Later Day Saint beliefs are very different from most

Namely, we don’t believe in heck, not as it’s presented by other Christian religions

And then note about Christianity in general (I actually don’t know if this part of the Atonement exclusive to us tho I should get more religion literate). We believe that Christ felt every feeling anyone’s ever felt - individually, and in context.

So what we believe is that because he did this, he knows perfectly how to counsel/comfort us when we need comfort. [hmm this opens up a debate about free will but if you wanna talk about that go read Licanius]

And so we believe that following these ideals/guides aren’t to prove some sort of point or prove that you’re a good person, it’s to become the best version of yourself you can be, and in the end to be happy. I want to be careful with this, because as that argument is rn, it can be interpreted as “to be happy you can’t be LGBTQ” (as well as some more negative interpretations), which isn’t what i mean at all. I do think, right now, inclusion is a very big problem with religion that im not really sure how to… deal with.

And then the rest is me justifying my reasons for continuing with religion despite this, feels a bit more “convert”-y. Aint actually part of my discussion just if you’re curious why *shrug*

  Reveal hidden contents

So like I am really uncomfortable with a few glaring issues in church organizations. I used to not be able to say that, but I am

But problems in the way the church (the organization) is organized shouldn’t change how I feel about the core ideas of the gospel (the ideas behind the organization). Because I have been helped in times of hurt, and I don’t want to invalidate that.

Another reason I continue is that our church believes in continual revelation. Whereas with other denominational churches that are stuck with outdated ideas, our religion has the ability to change and has been doing so

anyways that’s my more controversial opinions

 

 

Not all religons are cults, but some religons generally accepted as normal religons deffenetely are.

In general, and i know this isn't the exact definition, but i believe that if you have to 'escape' then it is very likely it is a cult, and in any situation, if you feel like the only way to get out would be 'escaping' then you should definetly take a step back, and look at your situation, even if it isn't a cult.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

21 minutes ago, Ookla the Dokja said:

I could not agree more, but i kinda just take the easy way out and say 'im agnostic which means i think god might exist or might not, but i dont care im just gonna go be a good person'

Not all religons are cults, but some religons generally accepted as normal religons deffenetely are.

In general, and i know this isn't the exact definition, but i believe that if you have to 'escape' then it is very likely it is a cult, and in any situation, if you feel like the only way to get out would be 'escaping' then you should definetly take a step back, and look at your situation, even if it isn't a cult.

Yeah

i agree

nah they defined cults as a group of people with shared beliefs

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

3 minutes ago, Ookla the Ansible said:

Yeah

i agree

nah they defined cults as a group of people with shared beliefs

That's weird.

I say

24 minutes ago, Ookla the Dokja said:

but some religons generally accepted as normal religons deffenetely are.

this (pardon my trashfire spelling) because my mom was talking to one of my friend's moms, and they said they grew up in a cult, and when my mom asked more she said it was a religon that I hadn't seen as cult-like before, but it makes more sense now.

And even if there are more requirements other than 'a group you would have to escape to leave from', if you do feel like you would have to escape, even if it isn't a cult, maybe try to.

edit: and if you see someone else leaving a group and you feel like they are 'escaping' or they think they are escaping, that could also be a sign to re-asses.

Edited December 10, 2025 by Ookla the Dokja

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

I kinda agree I don’t rly have a problem with religion I have a problem with people who use it to justify being storming rust heads to other people

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

7 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

I try and use logical proposals to explain my beliefs. For example, I might make the following argument against religions with an omnipotent God.

I just like picking at logic and arguments. I agree with your conclusion: I too am against organized religion and ideas like gods or God that call for worship.

Point F seems really weak due to the use of the notion of infinite possibilities. Imagine the geometry problem of "where will a dart hit on a dartboard?" If we imagine the dart board as being a finite plane, which is composed of infinitely many points, and we suppose the dart is a line, which is 1 point wide, then each point on the dart board only has a 1 out of infinity, or practically 0, chance of being hit. I think this shows that probabilities do not work properly with infinities that emerge from continuous possibilities.

I also suggest you consider reading Spinoza's Ethics or some secondary work that brings up the idea of God developed there. Spinoza's God is something like "The sum of all existing things", which I think is very interesting to think about.