People who receive $20 have a rational excuse for lying. People who receive $1 have no apparent excuse for lying, and therefore adjust their beliefs to suit the lie.
what's sad is I'm a bit OCD I actually might enjoy spending an hour moving around silly pegs and putting spindles in boxes. especially if I got to listen to that whole CD I'd be all "Yay let's play monotony!"
People who believe in religion rationalize that because many people do it and for such a long time as well, it is OK to believe in such things. Despite the vividly impossible and irrational events because many believe in it, the delusion is not as clear.
Carl Jung articulates that when an individual is in a group, he/she wants to be completely separate from the group = an individual, & AT THE SAME TIME wants to totally belont to the group. I don't know what the latest opinions are about this but it makes sense to me.
I'm curious to see if this theme is in the series.
Speaking of Justification, I´ve read that the self is very defensive .
It wil rationalize that every decision it has made was the best and therefore blames everyone else for its failures rather thatn its self.
So rationalizing that "Ive spent 1 hour doing pointless tasks" turns into something like "I´ve been exercising my self discipline, my patiance, it is good for me" or something like "I'm helping the world of science and knowledge through a self rightous sacrifice of 1 hour of my time
How does lying about your convictions bring you into contact with God? Or better yet, how do you still maintain the spirituality of an experience that can be statistically replicated through psychological manipulation?
@AntiCitizenX It's not lying or pretending. If I have some skills in math, using that skill will help me to inporve. If I have a testimony, using it will hellp me to grow stronger. Testimonies come in different forms. Not everyone's testimony is as strong as the other. So to grow we nid to use what we have and make ourself in contact with God.
Kida like. To love people. You need to do things for them. By doing good things for other people, we can love them even more.
It absolutely is, Chrstilen. This exact clip was sent to me by Mormon friends as an attempt to help me build a testimony that I did not have. The context here is that if you do not believe, then simply pretend you believe anyway and then the belief will come. It is a classic exploitation of cognitive dissonance in order to engineer belief. It works in any context you can imagine, whether the belief is real or imaginary.
@AntiCitizenX just a regular feeling. It's the spirit that contact us. So saying it can be "statistically replicated through psychological manipulation". is incorect. Because it's not a regular fealing.
But that's where the religion comes in ;D You need to have a testimony to know what it is. It's not someting you can anderstand if you dont have it. just like we cant imagine a new colour. Maker of this video dont have a testimony / colour ;D
Chrstilen, watch the first 30 seconds of this video. Dallin Oaks himself is telling you that if you do not believe, then simply tell people you believe anyway. That is exactly what he means by "we gain a testimony by bearing it." It is a classic exploitation of insufficient justification. Belief is generated through the mere act of expressing it, EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE! That is not "the spirit" acting on you. It is textbook psychological manipulation.
@AntiCitizenX I dont believe he meant it in that way. If you belive, say you belive and more and more your testimony will grow. But because you dident show all of the speach, I cant realy know what he meant.
Probably he just said one thing, but meant another. Or he just said someting the curch dont aprove of. The curch dont tel you to lie. making a fals testimony is agenst the curch. So he made a misstake in the way he said it. Or he said someting incorect. But I need the hole video to know.
Then read the full speech in its entirety and explain to me what you think he REALLY meant. You can find it in Ensign, May 2008, pp 26–29.
Chrstilen, I specifically picked this exact clip because my very own Mormon friends (on numerous, independent occasions I might add) tried to use this idea as a tool for instilling a testimony into me when I explicitly told them I did not have one. Oaks knows exactly what he is doing here.
chrstilen, let me be frank with you. I know exactly what you are saying because I've heard it a thousand times over. Please listen to me now and try to understand what I am telling you. I am telling you that, even if the thing is not true at all, the method of Dallin Oaks will still effectively generate belief in anything. God is entirely unnecessary to the process. We can even demonstrate this under laboratory conditions.
@AntiCitizenX "We can even demonstrate this under laboratory conditions."
Yes you can. But it's not what a testimony is. A testimony is not just a belife of someting. It's not like a regular religeon when you belive whatever the guy says. Some people will not folow the curch directions to gaining a testimony. They will simply trust whatever the guy says. But this is not what were suposed to do.
@AntiCitizenX There is a difference between people and the church. People are not perfect, so they will make misstakes.
A testimony is God talking to you. It's not a random belief of whatever you happen to hear about. It's not about your parents happens to belong to that religeus grup. A testimony is about you and God having a conection. It's not just a belife, so you cant "demonstrate this under laboratory conditions". Because it's not a regular question of what belife you have.
"People are not perfect, so they will make mistakes."
This is perfectly okay. But when those very same people refuse to acknowledge such mistakes and correct them, then all they've done is cross over the line into overt dishonesty. This is doubly true for someone like Oaks, who is in a position of trust and leadership. He was also a Supreme Court Justice for the state of Utah and should, as a matter of professional interest, seriously know better.
No it isn't. In this context, a testimony is a strong religious conviction what is openly shared in public fora.
If you want to know more about God talking to you, watch Part 6 of this video series. Even the experience of God's voice is yet another reproducible phenomenon under laboratory conditions. People hallucinate a lot more than you might realize.
@AntiCitizenX Regular as in people not even care what it says, but still belive it, because there parents do. Or they just belive it for no good reason. (The reason why people usualy stay in the religeon, that they were born into) Difference is that we strive to have a testimony. Testimony is the difrance.
A testimony is about God talking to you. You gain it from conection with God. That's what makes it difrent from a regular belief. A testimony is allso when you share it. that's why it's....
"Difference is that we strive to have a testimony. Testimony is the difference."
I beg to differ. Please watch Part 1 of this series and look at the map at 4:40 in the video. Do you understand the significance of that map? Upbringing is the single greatest predictor of faith in adulthood, and that includes Mormon. Everything you claim to be special to the LDS religion is abundant in many other faiths.
@AntiCitizenX called "holding your testimony". You tell people about your connection with God.
I'm gesing your "Mormon friends" dont know to mutch. That 's agenst the church.
Oaks like i said is just a regular human. He might not even be awere he made the misstake. So to blame him like that, is just silly. It's a misstake in words he used. Do you expect every leader, to read every line they ever said, just to make shurre. That there was noting wrong? Would you spend your time doing that?
@AntiCitizenX If someone makes a mistake. Then if you know your religeon. You wont have truble anderstanding, that he made a misstake. But If you do not know the religeon. Then you can just aske the missionaries.
"God's voice is yet another reproducible phenomenon under laboratory conditions. People hallucinate a lot more than you might realize."
It seems like that for someone who's never had a testimony. Just like I said. You cant compare it to regular things.
What if I simply compare it to other religious testimonies? Tell me the difference between the testimonies of an LDS guy, a Pentecostal guy, and a Muslim guy. I'll even link you to online examples here on YouTube. They cannot ALL be true, Chrstilen.
@AntiCitizenX A testimony is not like regular things. It'a a conection with God and if you never had it. You wont anderstand what that means.
If you never had candy before. You wont understand what it taste like.
If you never had a testimony before, you might think it's like people hallucinating. But you'd say the same about anyting ells you do not know. Just because you dont anderstand it. That dont mean it do not exist, or that it's wrong. It just means you dont have the knowledge.
"A testimony is not like regular things. It'a a conection with God..."
No, it is a strong conviction based on intense emotional arousal which you then attribute to God after the fact. I do not dispute your experience at all. I am only disputing the logical jump that says it has anything to do with a divine source. Human beings go through this stuff all the time from all sorts of religious backgrounds. They cannot ALL be true, Chrstilen.
"if you never had it. You wont anderstand what that means."
Chrstilen, it makes no difference what experiences I've gone through. Even if the LDS faith were perfectly true in every respect, it would still not change the fact that Dallin Oaks has openly resorted to a well-documented tool of manipulation. The belief comes whether or not God has anything to do with it. This is experimental fact. Truth does not need psychological mind games in order to generate belief.
@AntiCitizenX So i'll send the lik in a message to you.
.....
As we desire and seek, we should remember that acquiring a testimony is not a passive thing but a process in which we are expected to do something. Jesus taught, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).
@AntiCitizenX Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.
@AntiCitizenX A personal testimony is fundamental to our faith. Consequently, the things we must do to acquire, strengthen, and retain a testimony are vital to our spiritual life. In addition to those already stated, we need to partake of the sacrament each week (see D&C 59:9) to qualify for the precious promise that we will “always have his Spirit to be with [us]” (D&C 20:77). Of course, that Spirit is the source of our testimonies.
...
Now this is just a smal part of everyting he said.
@AntiCitizenX In lds we sometimes talk about faith and learn that we need to act, in order for it to grow. So when he said that. i belive he meant that we nid to act in faith. Following the teachings of our religion. It dont mean to pretend you have a testimony, but to act acordingly.
You can tell people, that you believe in the religion and you can tel people you know it's true. But there is a difrace. If we do not act, then it's dead faith. (Difent strenght in testimony)
"It dont mean to pretend you have a testimony..."
That is EXACTLY what Oaks is telling you, Chrstilen. Watch the video again. Read the transcripts. Oaks is literally telling you to pretend as if you have a testimony by professing a belief that you may not really have. "We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it." Please stop rationalizing and just recognize the plain truth in front of your face.
@AntiCitizenX When it comes to people beliving, what there parents belive in. That's absolutely true. That's a realy bad thing that happens everywere. People usualy dont think for themselfs. they just folow allong.
In a statement from this speach, he said "A personal testimony is fundamental to our faith." that's the difrance bettwen our religeon and other religeons.
Take Islam for example like you mentioned. They are not to aske questions, of things they dont anderstand. Because...
"When it comes to people beliving, what there parents belive in. That's absolutely true."
Did you happen to notice the huge blob of religious belief in the Utah/Idaho/Arizona region? It was all LDS. Why do you suppose this is so? It has everything to do with upbringing as a child. Everything people do to pass on their beliefs to their children is done by Mormons as well.
@AntiCitizenX That makes Saitan able to fool them. (Sorry that I dont have the Suras, but I can look it up if you want me to)
To get a testimony, we are to ask questions, read the scriptures, go to curch, pray and so on. A testimony is not just a fealing you get from a movie. It's not a drug that you take. It's Gods contact with you.
Why you probably dont understand what I'm saying. Is because your logic, is based on that my religeon is wrong. If you are to find truth, you canot...
"To get a testimony, we are to ask questions, read the scriptures, go to curch, pray and so on"
That is only partially true. To get a testimony, you must also believe in advance without evidence and merely seek out confirmation for what you have already concluded without justification. This is exactly how the book of Moroni instructs you, and it is exactly what LDS leaders instruct.
"You cant anderstand what a testimony is if you go by. "I'ts wrong because that's what I belive"."
Chrstilen, there are literally dozens of Christian denominations in this world. There are further dozens of denominations in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism. They cannot ALL be corrent, and many of them are certainly wrong. The default position is that any given claim is false only until AFTER evidence can justify a positive belief.
@AntiCitizenX Looks like you dont listen to what I'm saying.
Read it again and have a look at what he said befor that, so you can anderstand the meaning of it. I explained it for you, but you dident lissen to my explanation.
I gave you 3 different reasons that are possible. But you ignored them all. Thanks for not lissening to what I said... You dont have to agree with me, but at least consider the possibilities. Dont just ignore them.
"Read it again and have a look at what he said befor that, so you can anderstand the meaning of it."
I have read the text in full context. Oaks says many things, and you are probably right about much of what he says. But none of that changes the fact that he openly tells you to gain a belief through the mere expression of that belief. There are no alternative interpretations to his very plain and blunt statement: "We gain a testimony by BEARING IT."
It's called acting in faith. read my message dagen ;D
But again. If i didnt understand what he meant. That it might just be a mistake. He's just a human. If he would say someting that goes agenst the religeon. His words would not be of the curch.
"It's called acting in faith. read my message again."
Of course he is asking you to act on faith! I do not dispute this. But Chrstilen, he is also specifically giving you directions on how to do this. His directions are very explicit: "Gain or strengthen a testimony by BEARING IT." That is the essence of this video and his instructions. Gain belief, faith, testimony, whatever by expressing it to others.
@AntiCitizenX "The default position is that any given claim is false only until AFTER evidence can justify a positive belief."
You dont do research on something and think to yourself... "This is wrong" You do it with a open mind, so you wont ignore any ditails. You should not be ignorant and just believe whatever. But being closed of is not a good thing.
@AntiCitizenX When talking about if a testimony is real or not. You cant go by... it's fake until I proven it right. Because you cant know if it's real or not. Unles you have it. You cant prove it to someone. It's a thing that everyone has to find out themself.
You are not understanding what I'm saying, because you already consider it to be fake. You are not open to the debate ;D No one will see truth if they wont be open to it.
"When talking about if a testimony is real or not. You cant go by... it's fake until I proven it right. "
Oh no?
Chrstilen, I have a sandwich to sell you for 100 dollars. It brightens your skin, clarifies your vision, and prevents cancer for the rest of your life. One dose is all it takes. Are you interested?
@AntiCitizenX "sandwich to sell you for 100 dollars"... Sound nice and all. But it's not an argument you can use when it comes to religeon.
We are talking about a dude in the sky who has super powers ;D We are not talking about someting that can be proven. So saying that i will consider it fake until I prove it right. is not a good thing to be doing.
"But it's not an argument you can use when it comes to religion."
There is only ONE standard of truth and intellectual integrity. You don't get to pick and choose where this applies. If you don't want my sandwich, then you yourself do not believe your own words. Do not be a hypocrite or a double-thinker.
"We are not talking about something that can be proven"
Then you have no way to differentiate between a true idea versus something you made up out of nothing.
@AntiCitizenX When I say It cant be proven. I mean that we cant prove it to other people.
You dont seem to understand the basics of religion. It is an explanation to this world. Normal ruled might not aply, when you have a monkey with super powers controling, what's real and what's not.
You dont accept the fact that we dont know everything about this world. We cant know if it's the big bang or whatever. That's the basic of religeon. The fact that it cant be proven wrong and cant be proven
The factual validity of the Book of Mormon is not a properly basic belief, Chrstilen. You don't get to arbitrarily assert that you know it and no one else can. If you can't prove it to other people, then you have no basis pretending to know anything about it. If you can't show it, then you don't know it, and it is dishonest to say that you do.
"That's the basic of religeon. The fact that it cant be proven wrong and cant be proven"
All you've done is assert that your faith is completely immune to the standard rules of justifiable belief. Sorry, but you don't get to do that. Factual claims about reality must be subject to testing, or else there is no functional difference between the reality of your faith and a bunch of fairy tale nonsense you just made up.
@AntiCitizenX That is where a testimony comes in. That's why it's so inportant. We nid to have someting making it difrent from "fairy tale nonsense" and a testimony is it. Testimony is what can make you know if the religeon is true or not. But you nid to have a testimony, if you are to know.
But to understand what it is. You need to be open minded about it. it's a conection betwen you and God. This religeon is not about proving it right.
We can talk about whatever you like. But I already know what a religion is. If you feel that you have some unique insight to share, I will be happy to read over your words in their entirety.
I also appreciate the sincere dialogue you have shared and look forward to your response.
@AntiCitizenX That dont apply with every single religion (Example earth on an animals back ;D) But if you cannot accept this. Then you cant argue about religeus mathers. Because you are not accepting the basics.
Chrstilen, you refused to buy my sandwich. That means you yourself do not believe your own words. The only context where skepticism suddenly becomes a flaw is in matters of religion, and the only reason this happens is your own abject declaration that "skepticism is not allowed in religion." It is as if you think it is some kind of virtue to act like a gullible idiot, simply because a magical sky-monkey is involved.
@AntiCitizenX It's hard for people to understand what the meaning of a testimony is. You nid to have it, if you are to anderstand it completly. It's not just a regular belief of a monkey with super powers, or a end of the world prophecy.
It's a connection between you and God. So we cant clump it up with everyting ells like that. Because it's not the same thing.
Remember he's just a regular human like you and me. We all make misstakes from time to time.
Admittedly, when presented with the 'square pegs in square holes' task, I wondered what direction I was to turn them in, or if there was even any sort of rule for that. I thus envisioned messing with the minds of whoever was monitoring me by turning every other square peg a different direction. I even wondered, if the pegs had an image on them, akin to the arrows there, if it would be possible to generate a basic image on the grid.
In all probability he would just patiently stop you and then ask you to turn them all clockwise. The whole point was to be as dry and dull as possible. Remember that subjects had to do this for 30 full minutes. If you just made trouble, the worst that would happen is they would probably ignore your data point.
@AntiCitizenX Yeah, I had a feeling. I know what you were saying, I just had a thought on it I felt would be of interest. I recall some similar situations I was subjected to, and similarly probing possibilities of vague instructions. But that'd be missing the point of that scene.
Recently i've seen this video on youtube: watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
This guy explains that, in most tasks, when you try to motivate someone with a high amount of money, that can actually do harm in the person's performance. I wonder if is not that what is happening in the experiment presented in your video instead of an "insufficient justification".
@AntiCitizenX Love the video series, but a qucick reflection on my part. If I was asked by the researcher to lie for the experiment I would probably accept it (the money being a nice perk) but not because of a lack of moral integrity. I would assume it's part of the experiment/research design and be done with it (aka out of scientific integrity, relating to question 2 which got positive answers). Doesnt negate the main point but still feels odd (albeit naive on my part)..
Love the music btw. But it's a complete straw man. I can name ample instances were giving one's testimony resulted in a negative impact on the person giving said testimony. I mean, take the apostles for instance. John was BOILED IN OIL, alive to boot, for what he believed. If the survey asked people to lie, so that they could get boiled in oil, I am positive nobody would take it. Take my college for instance, when I tell people I'm a Christian, my intellectual standing is in question. But I do.
"I can name ample instances were giving one's testimony resulted in a negative impact on the person giving said testimony. "
There is another bias for that as well. It does not have an official name, but I call it the "initiation effect." Also, it is irrelevant. People come to believe what they say they believe, whether or not it is physically true. That is the issue here, and you do not seem to appreciate what it means.
No I completely get it and understand what you're trying to convey. But your conclusion is flawed given the premise. Yes, people have a tendency to believe what they already believe. But simply by the virtue of them believing it, does not make the belief false. For instance, I was taught that people (minds) exist beyond my own, and that the past does not just have the APPEARANCE of age. I think you'd agree that these are true statements, yet have no physical evidence.
"But simply by the virtue of them believing it, does not make the belief false."
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, EITHER, ANGEL!
" I think you'd agree that these are true statements, yet have no physical evidence."
They have plenty of physical evidence. You just don't like the idea of physical evidence serving as a guide for framing your beliefs. Otherwise, you have to admit that God is a baseless idea and needs to be given up; but you are completely unwilling to go there.
You're absolutely right. And I never said it did. You are the one who seems to think that if you believe something which you've always been taught, it's not true.
Ok. Give the the PHYSICAL evidence, for your extremely UNphysical statements. I dare you. Also, obviously I don't believe physical evidence should frame theistic belief. Uh, idk, maybe because God is considered nonphysical. Or do you not like math and logic<-nonphysical...
"I don't believe physical evidence should frame theistic belief. "
Then you have no basis for thinking anything you believe is real. The whole point of that pesky "physical evidence" is to serve as a differentiation between stuff that is genuinely real versus stuff that you just pulled out of your own rectum. When you say things like this, you are openly admitting that you do not care about reality.
This is another classic pitfall of guys who study a little bit of philosophy and suddenly think they're hot shit.
Angel, math and logic are tools for formulating statements about reality. Logic is only as good as the premises upon which it is based, and those premises are only as good as the empirical observations which generate them. No matter how "logical" something may seem, empirical observation always supersedes your deductions.
Haha I haven't studied, "a little bit", I've made it most of my time. Guess what, that whole first statement, "math and logic ..." means you don't believe math and logic exist in reality. Because if they are only "tools" to help us with reality, they themselves are not reality. So if we didn't use math and logic, would 2+2 still equal 4? "No matter how "logical"... ..deductions" Really? Is that a logical statement? Or is that an empirical observation?
Guess how they are demonstrated wrong....... ding ding ding! LOGICALLY. I mean, say I were to grant that empirical evidence overrides logical evidence. That statement itself is a logical conclusion. Thus, when empirical evidence shows logic to be wrong, i can logically assume that the empirical evidence is right, which I just did by using logical process. You're in the deep end right now and you don't have a floaty. I really wish you had any robust understanding of logic.
"I really wish you had any robust understanding of logic."
Sigh...
Angel... you're what... 22? A junior in college? Senior? I am a professional engineer. When you have actually applied your philosophical methodology in the real world to produce a predictive model or functional device, then you will have the right to talk shit. Until then, I'm not interested in watching you bumble over yourself in philosophical double-talk. So either put up or shut up.
Excellent series, I enjoy all your videos, but I like the ones in which you talk more because your voice is pleasing and has a quirky quality to it which I find entertaining. Quirky is a good thing.
@Anticitizenx i have never seen it but im just saying that even someone who is strongly against the idea of creation can see how it is possible if you think about it far enough back. maybe it was a bad example but i am not resorting to fallacies i have plenty of things i can talk about, but i have only so much space to explain things and so much time to look things up.
"but i have only so much space to explain things and so much time to look things up."
This is perfectly understandable. So about how about you start by bringing your absolute best evidence forward rather than randomly grabbing from a bag. Or better yet, just send me a PM. There is no word limit. But if you really want to continue the discussion, please think about what your claims are, break them down into essential components, and then rank them in order of significance.
@anticitizenx (coninued) even Richard Dawkins has said that if you Look far enough back in time you will find evidence that suggest a designer (or something along those lines) in an interview (youtube. c o m /watch?v=IbsUqwsP4UE)
Brov, you must realize that you are resorting to known fallacies to substantiate yourself. For example, Richard Dawkins is not my hero. The word of Dawkins is not Gospel. Second, did you seriously just cite "Expelled?" That entire movie is full of KNOWN FRAUDS! Even that quote from Dawkins is a classic quote-mine. Dawkins was not admitting to ID at all, and it is shameful of you to even try and suggest otherwise.
@anticitizenx "I have spent a great deal of time analyzing every single piece of evidence you can imagine and they all fall short without exception. "
that is what i am saying, everybody has the same information but are arriving at two different conclusions, even intelligent people, such as C.S. Lewis and Antony Flew even albert Einstein have concluded differently then you. so Either you are seeing something they arnt or vise versa. But i guess its not for me to decide for you.
@anticitizenx that is fine and i understand but there is so much i can tell you. you know the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink". i dont know if you have experienced something like this before but there are things that are right in front of you that you dont see or understand but someone else can and one day it just clicks and you can see it. thats the best way i can explain it.
I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that I have spent a great deal of time analyzing every single piece of evidence you can imagine, and they all fall short without exception. The Isaiah passage is a classic example of this. The whole thing proves nothing at all. I don't care how many more examples you care to offer, but to date they have all failed in my experience. So even a huge pile of nothing is still nothing at all.
what i ment about if it matters is that i had other reasons why i went in believing what i did, i was just researching more on this one particular subject for more detail and i found it. The reason i said prove me wrong is because i thought there might have been something why you might have believed in God but now you dont. since thats not the case then i guess the only thing that is keeping you from believing in God is that you havnt found any evidence to believe in God? is that right?
"you havnt found any evidence to believe in God? is that right?"
Strictly speaking, yes. But surely you must also understand that this is amble justification for me to assert the the non-existence of God as well. This situation could easily change any day, but the cost of that change is a compelling physical demonstration that God is something real. All I ask is that you follow proper academic and scientific discipline when making your case.
@anticitizen well just because all those other books have it doesn't mean they still cant be truthful. "You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias." does it matter? i found still found them regardless. the guy who found currents in the ocean used the bible to find them meaning it was written in the bible before discovered. The Bible is accurate on everything it talks about where as other religious books looses its consistency and accuracy. if you disagree then prove me wrong.
"does it matter? i found still found them regardless."
Yes it does. It absolutely matters. See video #3 in this series. If all you do is look for confirmation of what you already believe, you are guaranteed to find it, even if what you believe is completely bogus.
It is not up to me to prove you wrong. It is up to you to make a positive case and for me to address it piece by piece. You cannot just assume you are right in the absence of compelling physical evidence, Brov. That's not how the world works, and YOU KNOW IT. So please do not play this game. You have already offered up the Isaiah quote, which I think we can both agree was patently silly to assume indicates anything remotely scientific.
@anticitizenx of coarse its functionally useless, it wasn't supposed to affect our relationship with God, its just something that separates the bible from other books. the fact that there are more then just one of these, on top of other things,it is hard to believe that a bunch of men just came up with this story. with all the science, and morals and everything else discussed, it is more logical to believe in God then to think there isnt. but its not for me to decide.
"the fact that there are more then just one of these"
What do you mean, "more than just one of these?" You mean scientific principles in the Bible? I just explained to you that it is nothing of the sort. You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias. The Book of Mormon, Hindu Vedas, and the Muslim Qu'ran can ALL replicate dozens of examples similar to what you just showed me from Isaiah. Reinterpreting metaphors like that does not constitute a scientific principle.
What do you mean, "more than just one of these?" You mean scientific principles in the Bible? I just explained to you that it is nothing of the sort. You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias. The Book of Mormon, Hindu Vedas, and the Muslim Qu'ran can ALL replicate dozens of examples similar to what you just showed me from Isaiah. Reinterpreting metaphors like that does not constitute a scientific principle.
@anticitizenx now that you say it i think its just a lucky coincidence... just like all the other ones. do you honestly think that God had nothing to do with all those things. oh and by the way, who ever said they knew about the big bang, the universe can stretch other ways than just the big bang. if your certain that ish 40:22 is a coincidence then tell me what he is describing if not the stretching of the universe?
" then tell me what he is describing if not the stretching of the universe?"
It could mean any number of wild ideas. For example, a common belief in those times was the idea that the night sky was just a cloak draped over the firmament by whatever God. But to suggest that it means the expansion of space-time is ludicrous because even if you happened to be right, it would be functionally useless information. The whole thing is just a grab at straws.
@anticitizenx "You are the one linking us to websites which contain zero evidence but lots of people talking."
i forgot that when isaiah said 3000 years ago that the universe is being stretched(isaiah 40:22) that its doesnt mean anything.btw the websites are quoting and explaining. tell me how its zero evidence? references dont mean anything anymore? the Bible has stated things that has been proven today, yet darwins THEORY and the big bang THEORY yet have to be proven. question those?
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
Seriously? You honestly think this is evidence that Biblical authors had any clue about the Big Bang?
@anticitizenx i dont understand im not debating scientific facts in the bible, its not a science book but it happens to have some things in it that are scientific and are truthful which i tried to list for you... and i didn't read the whole website but he is just saying a possible idea for that, it doesn't disprove God. did you look at any of the other ones or just one random one?
"its not a science book but it happens to have some things in it that are scientific and are truthful which i tried to list for you"
And as I just pointed out to you, your justification for this claim is entirely empty. Yes, I did look at multiple claims on the website you linked, and no, they are not any more compelling. You cannot make a truthful case on evidence that sucks on this level. It is dishonest to both us and yourself.
@anticitizenx i have referred to a couple different webpages that i just looked up really quick cause their is not enough space to explain everything here when i can just show you a site that explains it in more depth. plus you got a problem with facts or you like taking information only from what people tell you?
"you got a problem with facts or you like taking information only from what people tell you?"
As much as I hate to say it, but this is classic psychological projection, and you need help. You are the one linking us to websites which contain zero evidence but lots of people talking. My references (see video above) are based on peer-reviewed experiments that can be reproduced on demand. How is it that you fail to notice the huge disparity in our respective claims?
@charkopolis there are many reasons not to dismiss the bible. first of all, the bible has stated things that were not scientifically proven until thousands of years later, i'll provide a link to a web page that will show you more specifically
(inplainsite. o r g/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html)
second like i have already said, fulfilled prophecies here is a link for that
(reasons. o r g/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible) (erase the spaces in org for both sites.)
I tried to give your link a chance. I picked a topic at random and read the "Adam and Eve" section. Whoever wrote that is an absolute fool. He makes references to scientific debates that don't exist, and his only reference is some random dude's webpage that only reiterates the claims already said.
I don't know how to break this to you, but your "scientific claims" in the Bible are MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH! This is not an honest search for truth, but confirmation bias.
@charkopolis im just going to repeat myself cause you seem to be over looking what im saying. the reason its been around is because it contains a lot of truth. just like the Qur'an has a lot of things that are said in the bible doesn't make it 100% truthful! show me something about greek mythology that is different then all the other religions and shows strong evidence that proves greek mythology to stand out from the rest of the other religions?
@goodbyebrov How about the simple fact that I was using the same reasoning you use with the bible. You're defending the bible over the same reasons you dismiss Greek mythos. Look back at this thread if you think I'm lying. I dismiss the bible for the same reasons you dismiss Greek mythos. And for you I ask the hard question. If you so easily dismiss Greek mythos for these reasons, and these reasons are the same when applied to the bible, then why do you not dismiss the bible?
Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain this, but please pay attention and try to understand.
OAKS: "A testimony is gained by bearing it."
This statement says that belief may be generated by expressing belief. The experiments by Festinger and Carlsmith demonstrate that this principle indeed works. However, it works with anything you care to imagine. It is NOT an avenue to truth, but an exploitation of cognitive dissonance.
Pay attention to the video. In the absence of external justification, the natural result from expressing an untrue belief is to convince yourself that it must be true. The $20 group had ample justification for lying, and so did not believe their own lie. The $1.00 group had insufficient external justification for lying. The natural result is to therefore believe that your lie was actually the truth. Hence, "we gain a testimony by bearing it."
@haidermann1... If I may also ask, what is your goal here? Are you trying to engage in a sincere dialog to understand new ideas? Or are you just here to blow hot air and get people riled? If you really desire to understand the video, I can help you. But if you're just going to act like a closed-minded teenager, then I'm just going to use you as a posterboy for Mormon stupidity and use you as a tool drive people away from the LDS faith. It's your choice, Champ.
I was told to go here by one of your followers,.. & SO in trying to understand his lame point of view, I need to understand your lame point of view. The closest thing I can get as an answer from you, & mingled with my own estimation is that you think LDS sacraments are boring, like the tests in these videos, & you think that there is some pay off that is equal to a monetary award when bearing your testimony. Which is false. then U ad Hominem attack?
You are practically the FIRST PERSON out of THOUSANDS to fail in understanding this video. I have already explained it to you TWICE in very clear terms, and you are still not getting it. So you are either not paying attention, or you are mentally incapable of understanding what is being explained to you. I would love to help you through this, but your attitude tells me you just want to hurl antagonism and make baseless accusations.
@AntiCitizenX So in other words you really can't answer my questions, you can't clarify what ever BS you claim to have already told me twice, & you over exaggerate not only your points, but your ad hominem attacks, (which are pretty childish). I just needed to understand your ridiculous montage so I could go back to this other Douche & tell him that I honestly looked and tried to understand your bias and reason with your dissonance in psychology of belief. I can see its too much to ask of you.
When you feel like having a real discussion, let me know. Until then, I am not interested in explaining the obvious to you when you are not going to bother trying to learn. It is apparent that you are just trolling for attention, and so I'm going to stop enabling you now.
@Anti Why? because you can't answer my simplest of simple questions.. thats why. Name a single mormon member who has accepted 20 dollars let a lone one dollar for bearing their testimony.
Nobody wants to bear their testimony most of the time out of fear of what obtuse ass holes like your self think of them & what they say, so most of the time we listen to little kids or Elderly, (Neither of which class usually gives 2 shits about what corn holes like you think) (nice testimonies regardless.)
"Name a single mormon member who has accepted 20 dollars let a lone one dollar for bearing their testimony."
That is exactly the point, Haid! When you do not believe something but say you do anyway (as Oaks suggests), you are statistically guaranteed to convert yourself through that very act, no matter what the belief is. Belief is generated through expression, even if it is wrong. Paying people money is what causes them to avoid conversion. Do you understand?
Oaks: "A testimony [belief that you don't already possess] is gained by BEARING IT."
Psychological effect: Insufficient justification.
Reference: Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959.
In the ABSENCE of external justification (like money), saying something you do not believe will cause you to believe it, even if the belief itself is painfully untrue. Getting paid is what causes you to AVOID conversion. No money = stronger likelihood of conversion.
@charkpolis very good you just repeated more specifically what i said. anyone can make up a story that might explain something but there is no direct link like how in the bible God stretches out the heavens which is stated several times in the bible and has been proven scientifically and how he suspends the earth over nothing, all this was discovered much later then when it was written in the bible. i can say apple god created apples. you cant disprove it so your saying i should believe it.
@goodbyebrov And all that only serves to support the truth of Greek mythos! Hades is called Hell in the bible, The city of the Gods are in the heavens -> heaven! So it was Zeus that stretched out the heavens! It's obvious that the God's of Greek mythos are true and are worthy of our worship. You're denial of this only serves to put yourself out of the God's favor.
@charkopolis secondly Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies himself. none of the greek Gods fulfilled nearly as many if any at all. the Bible explains many more things then Greek mythology and i would be glad to show you if your really interested.
@goodbyebrov Yet, the Greek story of the creation of the earth and of man explain why we are here. And, as an example, spiders are still around today because they are the decedents of Arachne. Spiders are direct evidence of Arachne. Lighting bolts are from Zeus. Hurricanes are made by Poseidon. Greek mythos explains practically everything! I could explain more, but I don't think that you believe me. Is any of this getting through?
@charkopolis Greek mythology does contain a lot of truth to their stories, thats why its been around for so long but all the stories dont interconnect to each other. all it is, is a bunch of Gods that were born from other Gods that have Different powers and their own separate stories of why things are like they are today. in other words the myth of sisyphus doesn't affect the myth of Aurora or vise versa. there is no evidence today that all these Gods are real.
@charkopolis also Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies himself. and when i was talking about it being more logical to belive in God i was saying if you look at all the ideas that could lead towards our existence without God, the odds are very slim, thus its more logical to believe God did it. i'd be Glad if you asked any questions i could try to answer that you believe God couldn't have done it.
Your logic is not the ultimate arbiter of reality. Empirical evidence and experimental demonstration is what matters. So what empirical test do you have that would potentially falsify the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-knowing, perfectly-loving, deeply personal deity? And what further tests can we perform that would demonstrate this thing to be the god of the Bible?
@charkopolis yea there were not many prophecies in greek mythology fulfilled. i only found one about Oedipus killing his dad. also myth's do reveal a lot of true things about human nature thats why it stayed around as long as it has. many of the stories or myths are stories that can be related to things today like the story of midas wanting gold but realized that it didn't really satisfy him in the end or the story of aurora.
@goodbyebrov What are talking about? All of the greek prophecies were fulfilled. Dionysus turned water into wine. And, the ruler of all gods, Cronos, was foretold of the prophecy that his son would usurp his throne. Zeus birth was hidden, and he eventually became ruler of the Gods. Another prophecy fulfilled. So here I point out, with so many similarities, maybe the God of the bible has always been Zeus! Consider that ...
Whoa the 1$ results blew me away! I was totally not expecting that. I wonder how does one go about designing an experiment like this. It would've never occurred to me that such results were possible.
@dcolombiano its tough to say that its just literature. look at some of the bible's characteristics. first of all its stood the test of time. things that contain a lot of truth will last a while. secondly it has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies which is rare. research some of the prophecies if you disagree. i think its more logical to believe in God then not to.
@goodbyebrov By your logic, the myths of ancient Greece are more true than the bible. The stories are older than the bible, and are still around! Those prophecies came true as well (do the research if you disagree)! It's more logical to believe in Zeus, Hera, Athena, Hades, etc... than not to.
@everyverser ohh i see what your saying. you mean when you read "he exploded in laughter" you think he literally exploded from laughing? there are figurative parts in the bible and literal parts just like any other great piece of literature. many people who are skeptical of the bible will read something and see what they want to believe to make it illogical when its just a misinterpretation.
@goodbyebrov I understand metaphors asshole, I'm not talking about metaphors, I'm talking about statements and stories. but what kinda metaphor is: and then the dead rose from their graves and appeared unto many? huh? or Jonah rested inside the fishes stomach for three days? or and angels appeared unto the masses and began to anoint everyone? these aren't things like "her love is like a dragon" or "he exploded into laughter" they are statements of fact.
@goodbyebrov Take your last statement...and also turn it the other way: Many people who are belives of the bible will ALSO read something and see what they want to believe to make it LOGICAL when its just literature!!! What you may take as fact...other christians or catholics or whichever religion is yours, make take that as a metaphor...so in reality the Bible is each person´s (or churches) interpretation of it...why you think there´s so many religions?? Or branches of the same Bible religion??
first when i asked my camp leader abt heaven and hell, and it was an ultimate good and ultimate bad, heaven is the best place in the universe, and hell is the worst, and how things seemed to be so one sided, god is the ultimate force of good, hes the most powerful being ever, and he always wins, he loves us sooooo much, and so on... religion looks every bit like a cult, what person would look at me as a newborn and immediately have to cut my penis into pieces, unless they were brainwashed?
i believe God used the authors of the original bible to write it. other people have translated it into english but somethings are misinterpreted because of the translation. if you think mortal men came up with all this stuff then these had to be genius men who where thousands of years beyond their time and can write a flawless book over 1500 years. i dont think that's very likely
the bible seems to be the only book that has to be read specially, how many other books are meant to be taken differently? huh? the illiad? the book of the dead? those are taken as they are written, your book is full of FAIL ok? the stories are supposed to be read as they are written! they arent metaphors, they werent intended to be metaphors, they were to be taken as real stories! the laws are meant to be real laws! its meant to be read like any other book, and taken as such
Have you watched AntiCitizenX's video on debunking Noah's saga? In it he shows us exactly why you shouldn't take what you read in the Bible literally because it makes no sense. Though any believer can make it logical by filling in the illogical parts with "God did it".
isnt that why God gave us the bible so we have something to refer to. people didn't just say here is the "truth" you got to believe it when you have nothing to base it upon. denial is what you're describing in the experiment and the bible is the truth so i'm not in denial. just as atheist believe many things to be true. this is a two way street.
Which version of the Bible are you talking about? Do you honestly think that the Bible you carry today is a literal dictation given to us in the English language by God himself? Or did a bunch of mere, fallible, imaginative mortal men write, compile, and translate the Bible?
I'm not talking about denial in this video. I am talking about how expression of a belief is sufficient cause for generation of a belief, and how religious leaders openly exploit this bias.
@AntiCitizenX I was raised in a jewish household, my doubt started when i was changing in the grade school boys room, and i looked at my...you know it was different, and i asked my mother about it, i then asked why god would make me with such a thing if it was to be removed immediately? after that i saw how religion was so completely similar to brainwashing, it looked immediately engineered for that purpose.
@goodbyebrov You were taught to "believe" that the Bible is the truth...yet there´s so many things in the bible that I´m sure you have questioned in your life....things that you know for a fact cannot ever be real...but are just fairytales with moral good messages behind them. Now dont
Sorry I don't quite get this. So the people who received $20 are less satisfied than those who received $1? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
davidc1711 6 days ago
@davidc1711
People who receive $20 have a rational excuse for lying. People who receive $1 have no apparent excuse for lying, and therefore adjust their beliefs to suit the lie.
AntiCitizenX 6 days ago
yep that was good example of sheepification....We are all victims to some extent..
philopolymath 1 month ago
what's sad is I'm a bit OCD I actually might enjoy spending an hour moving around silly pegs and putting spindles in boxes. especially if I got to listen to that whole CD I'd be all "Yay let's play monotony!"
ratholin 1 month ago
Climate change anyone??
Ansett76 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AntiCitizenX
loved the music.
Oh, the vid has a point too :)
PuppetXeno 2 months ago
Great vid, and love the music!
morgannicgregor 2 months ago
People who believe in religion rationalize that because many people do it and for such a long time as well, it is OK to believe in such things. Despite the vividly impossible and irrational events because many believe in it, the delusion is not as clear.
PROTOGgouki 3 months ago
If I was in the $1 group I wouldnt do it LOL
Miiehkimouse 4 months ago
Carl Jung articulates that when an individual is in a group, he/she wants to be completely separate from the group = an individual, & AT THE SAME TIME wants to totally belont to the group. I don't know what the latest opinions are about this but it makes sense to me.
I'm curious to see if this theme is in the series.
wellthenif 4 months ago
Oh BEFORE giving the survey. I missed that the first time through. Maybe it would be a good idea to emphasize that part.
Hmm. Maybe I could use the compliance technique to coax the staff into offering me a little more than that.
lazyperfectionist1 5 months ago
Man, this completely messed with my mind.
BlissfulAwareness 5 months ago
@BlissfulAwareness Or has it made you aware of something lurking IN your mind?
Vottaro 2 months ago
Speaking of Justification, I´ve read that the self is very defensive .
It wil rationalize that every decision it has made was the best and therefore blames everyone else for its failures rather thatn its self.
So rationalizing that "Ive spent 1 hour doing pointless tasks" turns into something like "I´ve been exercising my self discipline, my patiance, it is good for me" or something like "I'm helping the world of science and knowledge through a self rightous sacrifice of 1 hour of my time
BPMa14n 5 months ago 5
I belive it's meant as a way to be in contact with God. like praying.
When holding your testimony, you can feal the spirit.
Acting in faith, is better then just sitting around.
cant you people get that?
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
How does lying about your convictions bring you into contact with God? Or better yet, how do you still maintain the spirituality of an experience that can be statistically replicated through psychological manipulation?
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX It's not lying or pretending. If I have some skills in math, using that skill will help me to inporve. If I have a testimony, using it will hellp me to grow stronger. Testimonies come in different forms. Not everyone's testimony is as strong as the other. So to grow we nid to use what we have and make ourself in contact with God.
Kida like. To love people. You need to do things for them. By doing good things for other people, we can love them even more.
A testimony is not...
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"It's not lying or pretending."
It absolutely is, Chrstilen. This exact clip was sent to me by Mormon friends as an attempt to help me build a testimony that I did not have. The context here is that if you do not believe, then simply pretend you believe anyway and then the belief will come. It is a classic exploitation of cognitive dissonance in order to engineer belief. It works in any context you can imagine, whether the belief is real or imaginary.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX just a regular feeling. It's the spirit that contact us. So saying it can be "statistically replicated through psychological manipulation". is incorect. Because it's not a regular fealing.
But that's where the religion comes in ;D You need to have a testimony to know what it is. It's not someting you can anderstand if you dont have it. just like we cant imagine a new colour. Maker of this video dont have a testimony / colour ;D
Sorry if you dont anderstand what Im saying
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
Chrstilen, watch the first 30 seconds of this video. Dallin Oaks himself is telling you that if you do not believe, then simply tell people you believe anyway. That is exactly what he means by "we gain a testimony by bearing it." It is a classic exploitation of insufficient justification. Belief is generated through the mere act of expressing it, EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE! That is not "the spirit" acting on you. It is textbook psychological manipulation.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX I dont believe he meant it in that way. If you belive, say you belive and more and more your testimony will grow. But because you dident show all of the speach, I cant realy know what he meant.
Probably he just said one thing, but meant another. Or he just said someting the curch dont aprove of. The curch dont tel you to lie. making a fals testimony is agenst the curch. So he made a misstake in the way he said it. Or he said someting incorect. But I need the hole video to know.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"I dont believe he meant it in that way."
Then read the full speech in its entirety and explain to me what you think he REALLY meant. You can find it in Ensign, May 2008, pp 26–29.
Chrstilen, I specifically picked this exact clip because my very own Mormon friends (on numerous, independent occasions I might add) tried to use this idea as a tool for instilling a testimony into me when I explicitly told them I did not have one. Oaks knows exactly what he is doing here.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"Sorry if you dont anderstand what Im saying."
chrstilen, let me be frank with you. I know exactly what you are saying because I've heard it a thousand times over. Please listen to me now and try to understand what I am telling you. I am telling you that, even if the thing is not true at all, the method of Dallin Oaks will still effectively generate belief in anything. God is entirely unnecessary to the process. We can even demonstrate this under laboratory conditions.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX "We can even demonstrate this under laboratory conditions."
Yes you can. But it's not what a testimony is. A testimony is not just a belife of someting. It's not like a regular religeon when you belive whatever the guy says. Some people will not folow the curch directions to gaining a testimony. They will simply trust whatever the guy says. But this is not what were suposed to do.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"It's not like a regular religeon when you belive whatever the guy says. "
Define "regular religion" for me. What makes Mormons any different from, say, Pentecostals?
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX There is a difference between people and the church. People are not perfect, so they will make misstakes.
A testimony is God talking to you. It's not a random belief of whatever you happen to hear about. It's not about your parents happens to belong to that religeus grup. A testimony is about you and God having a conection. It's not just a belife, so you cant "demonstrate this under laboratory conditions". Because it's not a regular question of what belife you have.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"People are not perfect, so they will make mistakes."
This is perfectly okay. But when those very same people refuse to acknowledge such mistakes and correct them, then all they've done is cross over the line into overt dishonesty. This is doubly true for someone like Oaks, who is in a position of trust and leadership. He was also a Supreme Court Justice for the state of Utah and should, as a matter of professional interest, seriously know better.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"A testimony is God talking to you."
No it isn't. In this context, a testimony is a strong religious conviction what is openly shared in public fora.
If you want to know more about God talking to you, watch Part 6 of this video series. Even the experience of God's voice is yet another reproducible phenomenon under laboratory conditions. People hallucinate a lot more than you might realize.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Regular as in people not even care what it says, but still belive it, because there parents do. Or they just belive it for no good reason. (The reason why people usualy stay in the religeon, that they were born into) Difference is that we strive to have a testimony. Testimony is the difrance.
A testimony is about God talking to you. You gain it from conection with God. That's what makes it difrent from a regular belief. A testimony is allso when you share it. that's why it's....
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"Difference is that we strive to have a testimony. Testimony is the difference."
I beg to differ. Please watch Part 1 of this series and look at the map at 4:40 in the video. Do you understand the significance of that map? Upbringing is the single greatest predictor of faith in adulthood, and that includes Mormon. Everything you claim to be special to the LDS religion is abundant in many other faiths.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX called "holding your testimony". You tell people about your connection with God.
I'm gesing your "Mormon friends" dont know to mutch. That 's agenst the church.
Oaks like i said is just a regular human. He might not even be awere he made the misstake. So to blame him like that, is just silly. It's a misstake in words he used. Do you expect every leader, to read every line they ever said, just to make shurre. That there was noting wrong? Would you spend your time doing that?
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX If someone makes a mistake. Then if you know your religeon. You wont have truble anderstanding, that he made a misstake. But If you do not know the religeon. Then you can just aske the missionaries.
"God's voice is yet another reproducible phenomenon under laboratory conditions. People hallucinate a lot more than you might realize."
It seems like that for someone who's never had a testimony. Just like I said. You cant compare it to regular things.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"You cant compare it to regular things. "
What if I simply compare it to other religious testimonies? Tell me the difference between the testimonies of an LDS guy, a Pentecostal guy, and a Muslim guy. I'll even link you to online examples here on YouTube. They cannot ALL be true, Chrstilen.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX A testimony is not like regular things. It'a a conection with God and if you never had it. You wont anderstand what that means.
If you never had candy before. You wont understand what it taste like.
If you never had a testimony before, you might think it's like people hallucinating. But you'd say the same about anyting ells you do not know. Just because you dont anderstand it. That dont mean it do not exist, or that it's wrong. It just means you dont have the knowledge.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"A testimony is not like regular things. It'a a conection with God..."
No, it is a strong conviction based on intense emotional arousal which you then attribute to God after the fact. I do not dispute your experience at all. I am only disputing the logical jump that says it has anything to do with a divine source. Human beings go through this stuff all the time from all sorts of religious backgrounds. They cannot ALL be true, Chrstilen.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"if you never had it. You wont anderstand what that means."
Chrstilen, it makes no difference what experiences I've gone through. Even if the LDS faith were perfectly true in every respect, it would still not change the fact that Dallin Oaks has openly resorted to a well-documented tool of manipulation. The belief comes whether or not God has anything to do with it. This is experimental fact. Truth does not need psychological mind games in order to generate belief.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX So i'll send the lik in a message to you.
.....
As we desire and seek, we should remember that acquiring a testimony is not a passive thing but a process in which we are expected to do something. Jesus taught, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX A personal testimony is fundamental to our faith. Consequently, the things we must do to acquire, strengthen, and retain a testimony are vital to our spiritual life. In addition to those already stated, we need to partake of the sacrament each week (see D&C 59:9) to qualify for the precious promise that we will “always have his Spirit to be with [us]” (D&C 20:77). Of course, that Spirit is the source of our testimonies.
...
Now this is just a smal part of everyting he said.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX In lds we sometimes talk about faith and learn that we need to act, in order for it to grow. So when he said that. i belive he meant that we nid to act in faith. Following the teachings of our religion. It dont mean to pretend you have a testimony, but to act acordingly.
You can tell people, that you believe in the religion and you can tel people you know it's true. But there is a difrace. If we do not act, then it's dead faith. (Difent strenght in testimony)
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"It dont mean to pretend you have a testimony..."
That is EXACTLY what Oaks is telling you, Chrstilen. Watch the video again. Read the transcripts. Oaks is literally telling you to pretend as if you have a testimony by professing a belief that you may not really have. "We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it." Please stop rationalizing and just recognize the plain truth in front of your face.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX When it comes to people beliving, what there parents belive in. That's absolutely true. That's a realy bad thing that happens everywere. People usualy dont think for themselfs. they just folow allong.
In a statement from this speach, he said "A personal testimony is fundamental to our faith." that's the difrance bettwen our religeon and other religeons.
Take Islam for example like you mentioned. They are not to aske questions, of things they dont anderstand. Because...
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"When it comes to people beliving, what there parents belive in. That's absolutely true."
Did you happen to notice the huge blob of religious belief in the Utah/Idaho/Arizona region? It was all LDS. Why do you suppose this is so? It has everything to do with upbringing as a child. Everything people do to pass on their beliefs to their children is done by Mormons as well.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX That makes Saitan able to fool them. (Sorry that I dont have the Suras, but I can look it up if you want me to)
To get a testimony, we are to ask questions, read the scriptures, go to curch, pray and so on. A testimony is not just a fealing you get from a movie. It's not a drug that you take. It's Gods contact with you.
Why you probably dont understand what I'm saying. Is because your logic, is based on that my religeon is wrong. If you are to find truth, you canot...
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"To get a testimony, we are to ask questions, read the scriptures, go to curch, pray and so on"
That is only partially true. To get a testimony, you must also believe in advance without evidence and merely seek out confirmation for what you have already concluded without justification. This is exactly how the book of Moroni instructs you, and it is exactly what LDS leaders instruct.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX just atart by thinking it's wrong.
If it's true. then a testimony is difrent from regular Faith. If it's wrong. Then it's the same.
You cant anderstand what a testimony is if you go by. "I'ts wrong because that's what I belive"
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"You cant anderstand what a testimony is if you go by. "I'ts wrong because that's what I belive"."
Chrstilen, there are literally dozens of Christian denominations in this world. There are further dozens of denominations in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism. They cannot ALL be corrent, and many of them are certainly wrong. The default position is that any given claim is false only until AFTER evidence can justify a positive belief.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Looks like you dont listen to what I'm saying.
Read it again and have a look at what he said befor that, so you can anderstand the meaning of it. I explained it for you, but you dident lissen to my explanation.
I gave you 3 different reasons that are possible. But you ignored them all. Thanks for not lissening to what I said... You dont have to agree with me, but at least consider the possibilities. Dont just ignore them.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"Read it again and have a look at what he said befor that, so you can anderstand the meaning of it."
I have read the text in full context. Oaks says many things, and you are probably right about much of what he says. But none of that changes the fact that he openly tells you to gain a belief through the mere expression of that belief. There are no alternative interpretations to his very plain and blunt statement: "We gain a testimony by BEARING IT."
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX I already explained that to you.
It's called acting in faith. read my message dagen ;D
But again. If i didnt understand what he meant. That it might just be a mistake. He's just a human. If he would say someting that goes agenst the religeon. His words would not be of the curch.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"It's called acting in faith. read my message again."
Of course he is asking you to act on faith! I do not dispute this. But Chrstilen, he is also specifically giving you directions on how to do this. His directions are very explicit: "Gain or strengthen a testimony by BEARING IT." That is the essence of this video and his instructions. Gain belief, faith, testimony, whatever by expressing it to others.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX "The default position is that any given claim is false only until AFTER evidence can justify a positive belief."
You dont do research on something and think to yourself... "This is wrong" You do it with a open mind, so you wont ignore any ditails. You should not be ignorant and just believe whatever. But being closed of is not a good thing.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX When talking about if a testimony is real or not. You cant go by... it's fake until I proven it right. Because you cant know if it's real or not. Unles you have it. You cant prove it to someone. It's a thing that everyone has to find out themself.
You are not understanding what I'm saying, because you already consider it to be fake. You are not open to the debate ;D No one will see truth if they wont be open to it.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"When talking about if a testimony is real or not. You cant go by... it's fake until I proven it right. "
Oh no?
Chrstilen, I have a sandwich to sell you for 100 dollars. It brightens your skin, clarifies your vision, and prevents cancer for the rest of your life. One dose is all it takes. Are you interested?
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX "sandwich to sell you for 100 dollars"... Sound nice and all. But it's not an argument you can use when it comes to religeon.
We are talking about a dude in the sky who has super powers ;D We are not talking about someting that can be proven. So saying that i will consider it fake until I prove it right. is not a good thing to be doing.
You cant argue about religeon like that.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"But it's not an argument you can use when it comes to religion."
There is only ONE standard of truth and intellectual integrity. You don't get to pick and choose where this applies. If you don't want my sandwich, then you yourself do not believe your own words. Do not be a hypocrite or a double-thinker.
"We are not talking about something that can be proven"
Then you have no way to differentiate between a true idea versus something you made up out of nothing.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX When I say It cant be proven. I mean that we cant prove it to other people.
You dont seem to understand the basics of religion. It is an explanation to this world. Normal ruled might not aply, when you have a monkey with super powers controling, what's real and what's not.
You dont accept the fact that we dont know everything about this world. We cant know if it's the big bang or whatever. That's the basic of religeon. The fact that it cant be proven wrong and cant be proven
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"I mean that we cant prove it to other people."
The factual validity of the Book of Mormon is not a properly basic belief, Chrstilen. You don't get to arbitrarily assert that you know it and no one else can. If you can't prove it to other people, then you have no basis pretending to know anything about it. If you can't show it, then you don't know it, and it is dishonest to say that you do.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"That's the basic of religeon. The fact that it cant be proven wrong and cant be proven"
All you've done is assert that your faith is completely immune to the standard rules of justifiable belief. Sorry, but you don't get to do that. Factual claims about reality must be subject to testing, or else there is no functional difference between the reality of your faith and a bunch of fairy tale nonsense you just made up.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX That is where a testimony comes in. That's why it's so inportant. We nid to have someting making it difrent from "fairy tale nonsense" and a testimony is it. Testimony is what can make you know if the religeon is true or not. But you nid to have a testimony, if you are to know.
But to understand what it is. You need to be open minded about it. it's a conection betwen you and God. This religeon is not about proving it right.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Will you allow me to explain to you why it's not just some dumb religeon? And Coment back after I explained it?
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
Just send me a PM. Then you can take as long as you like.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX So you wanna know what makes religion... not a completely idiotic thing right? Just so I'm not explaining the wrong thing.
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
We can talk about whatever you like. But I already know what a religion is. If you feel that you have some unique insight to share, I will be happy to read over your words in their entirety.
I also appreciate the sincere dialogue you have shared and look forward to your response.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX That dont apply with every single religion (Example earth on an animals back ;D) But if you cannot accept this. Then you cant argue about religeus mathers. Because you are not accepting the basics.
It's like ignoring how 2*4 works in math
chrstilen5 6 months ago
@chrstilen5
"Because you are not accepting the basics."
Chrstilen, you refused to buy my sandwich. That means you yourself do not believe your own words. The only context where skepticism suddenly becomes a flaw is in matters of religion, and the only reason this happens is your own abject declaration that "skepticism is not allowed in religion." It is as if you think it is some kind of virtue to act like a gullible idiot, simply because a magical sky-monkey is involved.
AntiCitizenX 6 months ago
@AntiCitizenX It's hard for people to understand what the meaning of a testimony is. You nid to have it, if you are to anderstand it completly. It's not just a regular belief of a monkey with super powers, or a end of the world prophecy.
It's a connection between you and God. So we cant clump it up with everyting ells like that. Because it's not the same thing.
Remember he's just a regular human like you and me. We all make misstakes from time to time.
ps. Do you have a link for it all?
chrstilen5 6 months ago
Can't remember who said: "reflexion is the beguining of disobedience" (<=poor translation), but I've always kept that somewhere in my head...
Acrimonator 6 months ago
I was wondering about the music. Thank you for writing that at the end of the video.
marshalmother1 9 months ago
Presents a great way of showing people how they an be influenced. Definitely going to use it for future reference.
Rary113 10 months ago
Admittedly, when presented with the 'square pegs in square holes' task, I wondered what direction I was to turn them in, or if there was even any sort of rule for that. I thus envisioned messing with the minds of whoever was monitoring me by turning every other square peg a different direction. I even wondered, if the pegs had an image on them, akin to the arrows there, if it would be possible to generate a basic image on the grid.
kazen2 11 months ago
@kazen2
In all probability he would just patiently stop you and then ask you to turn them all clockwise. The whole point was to be as dry and dull as possible. Remember that subjects had to do this for 30 full minutes. If you just made trouble, the worst that would happen is they would probably ignore your data point.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Yeah, I had a feeling. I know what you were saying, I just had a thought on it I felt would be of interest. I recall some similar situations I was subjected to, and similarly probing possibilities of vague instructions. But that'd be missing the point of that scene.
kazen2 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
Recently i've seen this video on youtube: watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
This guy explains that, in most tasks, when you try to motivate someone with a high amount of money, that can actually do harm in the person's performance. I wonder if is not that what is happening in the experiment presented in your video instead of an "insufficient justification".
TribalPVP 1 year ago
@TribalPVP
Motivational influences are a separate issue from cognitive dissonance.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
Oh ok, it's because they seemed very similar, i thought they were somehow connected. Thanks for answering.
TribalPVP 1 year ago
Comment removed
TribalPVP 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Love the video series, but a qucick reflection on my part. If I was asked by the researcher to lie for the experiment I would probably accept it (the money being a nice perk) but not because of a lack of moral integrity. I would assume it's part of the experiment/research design and be done with it (aka out of scientific integrity, relating to question 2 which got positive answers). Doesnt negate the main point but still feels odd (albeit naive on my part)..
zottejakke3 1 year ago
Love the music btw. But it's a complete straw man. I can name ample instances were giving one's testimony resulted in a negative impact on the person giving said testimony. I mean, take the apostles for instance. John was BOILED IN OIL, alive to boot, for what he believed. If the survey asked people to lie, so that they could get boiled in oil, I am positive nobody would take it. Take my college for instance, when I tell people I'm a Christian, my intellectual standing is in question. But I do.
alterangel182 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"I can name ample instances were giving one's testimony resulted in a negative impact on the person giving said testimony. "
There is another bias for that as well. It does not have an official name, but I call it the "initiation effect." Also, it is irrelevant. People come to believe what they say they believe, whether or not it is physically true. That is the issue here, and you do not seem to appreciate what it means.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
No I completely get it and understand what you're trying to convey. But your conclusion is flawed given the premise. Yes, people have a tendency to believe what they already believe. But simply by the virtue of them believing it, does not make the belief false. For instance, I was taught that people (minds) exist beyond my own, and that the past does not just have the APPEARANCE of age. I think you'd agree that these are true statements, yet have no physical evidence.
alterangel182 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"But simply by the virtue of them believing it, does not make the belief false."
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, EITHER, ANGEL!
" I think you'd agree that these are true statements, yet have no physical evidence."
They have plenty of physical evidence. You just don't like the idea of physical evidence serving as a guide for framing your beliefs. Otherwise, you have to admit that God is a baseless idea and needs to be given up; but you are completely unwilling to go there.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
"THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, EITHER, ANGEL!"
You're absolutely right. And I never said it did. You are the one who seems to think that if you believe something which you've always been taught, it's not true.
Ok. Give the the PHYSICAL evidence, for your extremely UNphysical statements. I dare you. Also, obviously I don't believe physical evidence should frame theistic belief. Uh, idk, maybe because God is considered nonphysical. Or do you not like math and logic<-nonphysical...
alterangel182 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"I don't believe physical evidence should frame theistic belief. "
Then you have no basis for thinking anything you believe is real. The whole point of that pesky "physical evidence" is to serve as a differentiation between stuff that is genuinely real versus stuff that you just pulled out of your own rectum. When you say things like this, you are openly admitting that you do not care about reality.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"Or do you not like math and logic?"
This is another classic pitfall of guys who study a little bit of philosophy and suddenly think they're hot shit.
Angel, math and logic are tools for formulating statements about reality. Logic is only as good as the premises upon which it is based, and those premises are only as good as the empirical observations which generate them. No matter how "logical" something may seem, empirical observation always supersedes your deductions.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
Haha I haven't studied, "a little bit", I've made it most of my time. Guess what, that whole first statement, "math and logic ..." means you don't believe math and logic exist in reality. Because if they are only "tools" to help us with reality, they themselves are not reality. So if we didn't use math and logic, would 2+2 still equal 4? "No matter how "logical"... ..deductions" Really? Is that a logical statement? Or is that an empirical observation?
alterangel182 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"you don't believe math and logic exist in reality"
They don't. They only exist by definitional fiat.
"would 2+2 still equal 4?"
It depends on how you define addition in your vector space. I can easily generate a mathematical framework where RED + BLUE = DONKEY.
"Is that a logical statement? Or is that an empirical observation?"
It is empirical. Seemingly impeccable logic is demonstrably wrong all the time. Or do you think you can just derive Maxwell's equations?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
Guess how they are demonstrated wrong....... ding ding ding! LOGICALLY. I mean, say I were to grant that empirical evidence overrides logical evidence. That statement itself is a logical conclusion. Thus, when empirical evidence shows logic to be wrong, i can logically assume that the empirical evidence is right, which I just did by using logical process. You're in the deep end right now and you don't have a floaty. I really wish you had any robust understanding of logic.
alterangel182 1 year ago
@alterangel182
"I really wish you had any robust understanding of logic."
Sigh...
Angel... you're what... 22? A junior in college? Senior? I am a professional engineer. When you have actually applied your philosophical methodology in the real world to produce a predictive model or functional device, then you will have the right to talk shit. Until then, I'm not interested in watching you bumble over yourself in philosophical double-talk. So either put up or shut up.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
Excellent series, I enjoy all your videos, but I like the ones in which you talk more because your voice is pleasing and has a quirky quality to it which I find entertaining. Quirky is a good thing.
99f234 1 year ago
HAHAHAH Looks like others think your vids are bunk as well
haidermann1 1 year ago
@Anticitizenx i have never seen it but im just saying that even someone who is strongly against the idea of creation can see how it is possible if you think about it far enough back. maybe it was a bad example but i am not resorting to fallacies i have plenty of things i can talk about, but i have only so much space to explain things and so much time to look things up.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"but i have only so much space to explain things and so much time to look things up."
This is perfectly understandable. So about how about you start by bringing your absolute best evidence forward rather than randomly grabbing from a bag. Or better yet, just send me a PM. There is no word limit. But if you really want to continue the discussion, please think about what your claims are, break them down into essential components, and then rank them in order of significance.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx (coninued) even Richard Dawkins has said that if you Look far enough back in time you will find evidence that suggest a designer (or something along those lines) in an interview (youtube. c o m /watch?v=IbsUqwsP4UE)
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Brov, you must realize that you are resorting to known fallacies to substantiate yourself. For example, Richard Dawkins is not my hero. The word of Dawkins is not Gospel. Second, did you seriously just cite "Expelled?" That entire movie is full of KNOWN FRAUDS! Even that quote from Dawkins is a classic quote-mine. Dawkins was not admitting to ID at all, and it is shameful of you to even try and suggest otherwise.
This is exactly why I continue to reject God.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx "I have spent a great deal of time analyzing every single piece of evidence you can imagine and they all fall short without exception. "
that is what i am saying, everybody has the same information but are arriving at two different conclusions, even intelligent people, such as C.S. Lewis and Antony Flew even albert Einstein have concluded differently then you. so Either you are seeing something they arnt or vise versa. But i guess its not for me to decide for you.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@anticitizenx that is fine and i understand but there is so much i can tell you. you know the old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink". i dont know if you have experienced something like this before but there are things that are right in front of you that you dont see or understand but someone else can and one day it just clicks and you can see it. thats the best way i can explain it.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that I have spent a great deal of time analyzing every single piece of evidence you can imagine, and they all fall short without exception. The Isaiah passage is a classic example of this. The whole thing proves nothing at all. I don't care how many more examples you care to offer, but to date they have all failed in my experience. So even a huge pile of nothing is still nothing at all.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
what i ment about if it matters is that i had other reasons why i went in believing what i did, i was just researching more on this one particular subject for more detail and i found it. The reason i said prove me wrong is because i thought there might have been something why you might have believed in God but now you dont. since thats not the case then i guess the only thing that is keeping you from believing in God is that you havnt found any evidence to believe in God? is that right?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"you havnt found any evidence to believe in God? is that right?"
Strictly speaking, yes. But surely you must also understand that this is amble justification for me to assert the the non-existence of God as well. This situation could easily change any day, but the cost of that change is a compelling physical demonstration that God is something real. All I ask is that you follow proper academic and scientific discipline when making your case.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizen well just because all those other books have it doesn't mean they still cant be truthful. "You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias." does it matter? i found still found them regardless. the guy who found currents in the ocean used the bible to find them meaning it was written in the bible before discovered. The Bible is accurate on everything it talks about where as other religious books looses its consistency and accuracy. if you disagree then prove me wrong.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"does it matter? i found still found them regardless."
Yes it does. It absolutely matters. See video #3 in this series. If all you do is look for confirmation of what you already believe, you are guaranteed to find it, even if what you believe is completely bogus.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"if you disagree then prove me wrong."
It is not up to me to prove you wrong. It is up to you to make a positive case and for me to address it piece by piece. You cannot just assume you are right in the absence of compelling physical evidence, Brov. That's not how the world works, and YOU KNOW IT. So please do not play this game. You have already offered up the Isaiah quote, which I think we can both agree was patently silly to assume indicates anything remotely scientific.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx of coarse its functionally useless, it wasn't supposed to affect our relationship with God, its just something that separates the bible from other books. the fact that there are more then just one of these, on top of other things,it is hard to believe that a bunch of men just came up with this story. with all the science, and morals and everything else discussed, it is more logical to believe in God then to think there isnt. but its not for me to decide.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"the fact that there are more then just one of these"
What do you mean, "more than just one of these?" You mean scientific principles in the Bible? I just explained to you that it is nothing of the sort. You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias. The Book of Mormon, Hindu Vedas, and the Muslim Qu'ran can ALL replicate dozens of examples similar to what you just showed me from Isaiah. Reinterpreting metaphors like that does not constitute a scientific principle.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"fact that there are more then just one of these"
What do you mean, "more than just one of these?" You mean scientific principles in the Bible? I just explained to you that it is nothing of the sort. You are simply looking for clues to confirm your bias. The Book of Mormon, Hindu Vedas, and the Muslim Qu'ran can ALL replicate dozens of examples similar to what you just showed me from Isaiah. Reinterpreting metaphors like that does not constitute a scientific principle.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx now that you say it i think its just a lucky coincidence... just like all the other ones. do you honestly think that God had nothing to do with all those things. oh and by the way, who ever said they knew about the big bang, the universe can stretch other ways than just the big bang. if your certain that ish 40:22 is a coincidence then tell me what he is describing if not the stretching of the universe?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
" then tell me what he is describing if not the stretching of the universe?"
It could mean any number of wild ideas. For example, a common belief in those times was the idea that the night sky was just a cloak draped over the firmament by whatever God. But to suggest that it means the expansion of space-time is ludicrous because even if you happened to be right, it would be functionally useless information. The whole thing is just a grab at straws.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx "You are the one linking us to websites which contain zero evidence but lots of people talking."
i forgot that when isaiah said 3000 years ago that the universe is being stretched(isaiah 40:22) that its doesnt mean anything.btw the websites are quoting and explaining. tell me how its zero evidence? references dont mean anything anymore? the Bible has stated things that has been proven today, yet darwins THEORY and the big bang THEORY yet have to be proven. question those?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
Seriously? You honestly think this is evidence that Biblical authors had any clue about the Big Bang?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx i dont understand im not debating scientific facts in the bible, its not a science book but it happens to have some things in it that are scientific and are truthful which i tried to list for you... and i didn't read the whole website but he is just saying a possible idea for that, it doesn't disprove God. did you look at any of the other ones or just one random one?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"its not a science book but it happens to have some things in it that are scientific and are truthful which i tried to list for you"
And as I just pointed out to you, your justification for this claim is entirely empty. Yes, I did look at multiple claims on the website you linked, and no, they are not any more compelling. You cannot make a truthful case on evidence that sucks on this level. It is dishonest to both us and yourself.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@anticitizenx i have referred to a couple different webpages that i just looked up really quick cause their is not enough space to explain everything here when i can just show you a site that explains it in more depth. plus you got a problem with facts or you like taking information only from what people tell you?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"you got a problem with facts or you like taking information only from what people tell you?"
As much as I hate to say it, but this is classic psychological projection, and you need help. You are the one linking us to websites which contain zero evidence but lots of people talking. My references (see video above) are based on peer-reviewed experiments that can be reproduced on demand. How is it that you fail to notice the huge disparity in our respective claims?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@charkopolis (continued) you are welcome to do more research on your own or ask questions if you still are not convinced but thats up to you.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@charkopolis there are many reasons not to dismiss the bible. first of all, the bible has stated things that were not scientifically proven until thousands of years later, i'll provide a link to a web page that will show you more specifically
(inplainsite. o r g/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html)
second like i have already said, fulfilled prophecies here is a link for that
(reasons. o r g/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible) (erase the spaces in org for both sites.)
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
I tried to give your link a chance. I picked a topic at random and read the "Adam and Eve" section. Whoever wrote that is an absolute fool. He makes references to scientific debates that don't exist, and his only reference is some random dude's webpage that only reiterates the claims already said.
I don't know how to break this to you, but your "scientific claims" in the Bible are MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH! This is not an honest search for truth, but confirmation bias.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Correction, his only "citation" is some random dude's webpage.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@charkopolis im just going to repeat myself cause you seem to be over looking what im saying. the reason its been around is because it contains a lot of truth. just like the Qur'an has a lot of things that are said in the bible doesn't make it 100% truthful! show me something about greek mythology that is different then all the other religions and shows strong evidence that proves greek mythology to stand out from the rest of the other religions?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov How about the simple fact that I was using the same reasoning you use with the bible. You're defending the bible over the same reasons you dismiss Greek mythos. Look back at this thread if you think I'm lying. I dismiss the bible for the same reasons you dismiss Greek mythos. And for you I ask the hard question. If you so easily dismiss Greek mythos for these reasons, and these reasons are the same when applied to the bible, then why do you not dismiss the bible?
charkopolis 1 year ago
how does Pres Oaks asking us to bear testimony jive with getting paid to tell people about boring blocks being fun and exciting?
This has nothing to do with testifying of your own experiences on a spiritual level.
haidermann1 1 year ago
@haidermann1
Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain this, but please pay attention and try to understand.
OAKS: "A testimony is gained by bearing it."
This statement says that belief may be generated by expressing belief. The experiments by Festinger and Carlsmith demonstrate that this principle indeed works. However, it works with anything you care to imagine. It is NOT an avenue to truth, but an exploitation of cognitive dissonance.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX well I Guess I'm just too stupid for your smart ass. Where does the Money received analagy come into play with bearing your testimony?
haidermann1 1 year ago
@haidermann1
Pay attention to the video. In the absence of external justification, the natural result from expressing an untrue belief is to convince yourself that it must be true. The $20 group had ample justification for lying, and so did not believe their own lie. The $1.00 group had insufficient external justification for lying. The natural result is to therefore believe that your lie was actually the truth. Hence, "we gain a testimony by bearing it."
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@haidermann1... If I may also ask, what is your goal here? Are you trying to engage in a sincere dialog to understand new ideas? Or are you just here to blow hot air and get people riled? If you really desire to understand the video, I can help you. But if you're just going to act like a closed-minded teenager, then I'm just going to use you as a posterboy for Mormon stupidity and use you as a tool drive people away from the LDS faith. It's your choice, Champ.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@Anti Yea Use me to drive people away. lol
I was told to go here by one of your followers,.. & SO in trying to understand his lame point of view, I need to understand your lame point of view. The closest thing I can get as an answer from you, & mingled with my own estimation is that you think LDS sacraments are boring, like the tests in these videos, & you think that there is some pay off that is equal to a monetary award when bearing your testimony. Which is false. then U ad Hominem attack?
haidermann1 1 year ago
@haidermann1
You are practically the FIRST PERSON out of THOUSANDS to fail in understanding this video. I have already explained it to you TWICE in very clear terms, and you are still not getting it. So you are either not paying attention, or you are mentally incapable of understanding what is being explained to you. I would love to help you through this, but your attitude tells me you just want to hurl antagonism and make baseless accusations.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX So in other words you really can't answer my questions, you can't clarify what ever BS you claim to have already told me twice, & you over exaggerate not only your points, but your ad hominem attacks, (which are pretty childish). I just needed to understand your ridiculous montage so I could go back to this other Douche & tell him that I honestly looked and tried to understand your bias and reason with your dissonance in psychology of belief. I can see its too much to ask of you.
haidermann1 1 year ago
@haidermann1
" I can see its too much to ask of you."
When you feel like having a real discussion, let me know. Until then, I am not interested in explaining the obvious to you when you are not going to bother trying to learn. It is apparent that you are just trolling for attention, and so I'm going to stop enabling you now.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@Anti Why? because you can't answer my simplest of simple questions.. thats why. Name a single mormon member who has accepted 20 dollars let a lone one dollar for bearing their testimony.
Nobody wants to bear their testimony most of the time out of fear of what obtuse ass holes like your self think of them & what they say, so most of the time we listen to little kids or Elderly, (Neither of which class usually gives 2 shits about what corn holes like you think) (nice testimonies regardless.)
haidermann1 1 year ago
@haidermann1
"Name a single mormon member who has accepted 20 dollars let a lone one dollar for bearing their testimony."
That is exactly the point, Haid! When you do not believe something but say you do anyway (as Oaks suggests), you are statistically guaranteed to convert yourself through that very act, no matter what the belief is. Belief is generated through expression, even if it is wrong. Paying people money is what causes them to avoid conversion. Do you understand?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@haidermann1
Oaks: "A testimony [belief that you don't already possess] is gained by BEARING IT."
Psychological effect: Insufficient justification.
Reference: Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959.
In the ABSENCE of external justification (like money), saying something you do not believe will cause you to believe it, even if the belief itself is painfully untrue. Getting paid is what causes you to AVOID conversion. No money = stronger likelihood of conversion.
What do you not understand?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@charkpolis very good you just repeated more specifically what i said. anyone can make up a story that might explain something but there is no direct link like how in the bible God stretches out the heavens which is stated several times in the bible and has been proven scientifically and how he suspends the earth over nothing, all this was discovered much later then when it was written in the bible. i can say apple god created apples. you cant disprove it so your saying i should believe it.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov And all that only serves to support the truth of Greek mythos! Hades is called Hell in the bible, The city of the Gods are in the heavens -> heaven! So it was Zeus that stretched out the heavens! It's obvious that the God's of Greek mythos are true and are worthy of our worship. You're denial of this only serves to put yourself out of the God's favor.
charkopolis 1 year ago
@charkopolis secondly Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies himself. none of the greek Gods fulfilled nearly as many if any at all. the Bible explains many more things then Greek mythology and i would be glad to show you if your really interested.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov Yet, the Greek story of the creation of the earth and of man explain why we are here. And, as an example, spiders are still around today because they are the decedents of Arachne. Spiders are direct evidence of Arachne. Lighting bolts are from Zeus. Hurricanes are made by Poseidon. Greek mythos explains practically everything! I could explain more, but I don't think that you believe me. Is any of this getting through?
charkopolis 1 year ago
@charkopolis Greek mythology does contain a lot of truth to their stories, thats why its been around for so long but all the stories dont interconnect to each other. all it is, is a bunch of Gods that were born from other Gods that have Different powers and their own separate stories of why things are like they are today. in other words the myth of sisyphus doesn't affect the myth of Aurora or vise versa. there is no evidence today that all these Gods are real.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@charkopolis also Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies himself. and when i was talking about it being more logical to belive in God i was saying if you look at all the ideas that could lead towards our existence without God, the odds are very slim, thus its more logical to believe God did it. i'd be Glad if you asked any questions i could try to answer that you believe God couldn't have done it.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"thus its more logical to believe God did it."
Your logic is not the ultimate arbiter of reality. Empirical evidence and experimental demonstration is what matters. So what empirical test do you have that would potentially falsify the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-knowing, perfectly-loving, deeply personal deity? And what further tests can we perform that would demonstrate this thing to be the god of the Bible?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@charkopolis yea there were not many prophecies in greek mythology fulfilled. i only found one about Oedipus killing his dad. also myth's do reveal a lot of true things about human nature thats why it stayed around as long as it has. many of the stories or myths are stories that can be related to things today like the story of midas wanting gold but realized that it didn't really satisfy him in the end or the story of aurora.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov What are talking about? All of the greek prophecies were fulfilled. Dionysus turned water into wine. And, the ruler of all gods, Cronos, was foretold of the prophecy that his son would usurp his throne. Zeus birth was hidden, and he eventually became ruler of the Gods. Another prophecy fulfilled. So here I point out, with so many similarities, maybe the God of the bible has always been Zeus! Consider that ...
charkopolis 1 year ago
Whoa the 1$ results blew me away! I was totally not expecting that. I wonder how does one go about designing an experiment like this. It would've never occurred to me that such results were possible.
NotThat3 1 year ago
@dcolombiano its tough to say that its just literature. look at some of the bible's characteristics. first of all its stood the test of time. things that contain a lot of truth will last a while. secondly it has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies which is rare. research some of the prophecies if you disagree. i think its more logical to believe in God then not to.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov By your logic, the myths of ancient Greece are more true than the bible. The stories are older than the bible, and are still around! Those prophecies came true as well (do the research if you disagree)! It's more logical to believe in Zeus, Hera, Athena, Hades, etc... than not to.
charkopolis 1 year ago
wow... i didn't say everything in the bible is a metaphor. why dont you look it up for yourself.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@everyverser ohh i see what your saying. you mean when you read "he exploded in laughter" you think he literally exploded from laughing? there are figurative parts in the bible and literal parts just like any other great piece of literature. many people who are skeptical of the bible will read something and see what they want to believe to make it illogical when its just a misinterpretation.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov I understand metaphors asshole, I'm not talking about metaphors, I'm talking about statements and stories. but what kinda metaphor is: and then the dead rose from their graves and appeared unto many? huh? or Jonah rested inside the fishes stomach for three days? or and angels appeared unto the masses and began to anoint everyone? these aren't things like "her love is like a dragon" or "he exploded into laughter" they are statements of fact.
EVERYVERSER 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov Take your last statement...and also turn it the other way: Many people who are belives of the bible will ALSO read something and see what they want to believe to make it LOGICAL when its just literature!!! What you may take as fact...other christians or catholics or whichever religion is yours, make take that as a metaphor...so in reality the Bible is each person´s (or churches) interpretation of it...why you think there´s so many religions?? Or branches of the same Bible religion??
DColombiano 1 year ago
first when i asked my camp leader abt heaven and hell, and it was an ultimate good and ultimate bad, heaven is the best place in the universe, and hell is the worst, and how things seemed to be so one sided, god is the ultimate force of good, hes the most powerful being ever, and he always wins, he loves us sooooo much, and so on... religion looks every bit like a cult, what person would look at me as a newborn and immediately have to cut my penis into pieces, unless they were brainwashed?
EVERYVERSER 1 year ago
@spaceghost1313 lets here one then?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
i believe God used the authors of the original bible to write it. other people have translated it into english but somethings are misinterpreted because of the translation. if you think mortal men came up with all this stuff then these had to be genius men who where thousands of years beyond their time and can write a flawless book over 1500 years. i dont think that's very likely
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
OH this shit again.
the bible seems to be the only book that has to be read specially, how many other books are meant to be taken differently? huh? the illiad? the book of the dead? those are taken as they are written, your book is full of FAIL ok? the stories are supposed to be read as they are written! they arent metaphors, they werent intended to be metaphors, they were to be taken as real stories! the laws are meant to be real laws! its meant to be read like any other book, and taken as such
EVERYVERSER 1 year ago
@EVERYVERSER
Have you watched AntiCitizenX's video on debunking Noah's saga? In it he shows us exactly why you shouldn't take what you read in the Bible literally because it makes no sense. Though any believer can make it logical by filling in the illogical parts with "God did it".
beanio12 1 year ago
isnt that why God gave us the bible so we have something to refer to. people didn't just say here is the "truth" you got to believe it when you have nothing to base it upon. denial is what you're describing in the experiment and the bible is the truth so i'm not in denial. just as atheist believe many things to be true. this is a two way street.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Which version of the Bible are you talking about? Do you honestly think that the Bible you carry today is a literal dictation given to us in the English language by God himself? Or did a bunch of mere, fallible, imaginative mortal men write, compile, and translate the Bible?
I'm not talking about denial in this video. I am talking about how expression of a belief is sufficient cause for generation of a belief, and how religious leaders openly exploit this bias.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX I was raised in a jewish household, my doubt started when i was changing in the grade school boys room, and i looked at my...you know it was different, and i asked my mother about it, i then asked why god would make me with such a thing if it was to be removed immediately? after that i saw how religion was so completely similar to brainwashing, it looked immediately engineered for that purpose.
EVERYVERSER 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
did god write the bible?
if the bible is "the truth" it sure has a lot of factual errors in it
spaceghost1313 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov You were taught to "believe" that the Bible is the truth...yet there´s so many things in the bible that I´m sure you have questioned in your life....things that you know for a fact cannot ever be real...but are just fairytales with moral good messages behind them. Now dont