Faith or Sceptism? (beliefs, evolve)

[cardero]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I disagree because validity does not describe belief but the reason or argument that justifies a belief. A belief cannot be valid or invalid.

The validity is for the people involved in the process of believing (for example; expressing, examining, encouraging and sharing the belief). If someone wants to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because the possibility exists that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster and there exists no evidence to the contrary that there are not any Flying Spaghetti Monsters, I say let them. There is no harm or benefit to the belief whether one believes or not.

[Melissa G]

I prefer self-delusion for the masses, I mean after all, there around 8 million members of the LDS. I'm no fan of Marx, but when he said Religion was the opium of the masses, I think he was close to the truth. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many who profess to be religious, but only for social benefits, ie belonging to something that gives them a sense of identity.

Melissa G

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I prefer self-delusion for the masses, I mean after all, there around 8 million members of the LDS.

You are joking, I hope.

[Melissa G]

Not at all...wasn't it Goebbels who said, the bigger the lie, the more believable it is ?

~melissa

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

Not at all...wasn't it Goebbels who said, the bigger the lie, the more believable it is ?

So, to be clear, you are saying that the Mormonism is a lie and its followers self-deluded?

[Melissa G]

I thought I'd been saying that all along in the various threads, along with many others. If you dispute the authenticity of Smith, and BOM, what other conclusion can you draw !

~M

[cardero]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I prefer self-delusion for the masses, I mean after all, there around 8 million members of the LDS. I'm no fan of Marx, but when he said Religion was the opium of the masses, I think he was close to the truth. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many who profess to be religious, but only for social benefits, ie belonging to something that gives them a sense of identity.

Melissa G

The concern with some religions is that they believe that they have to believe something to be true in order to encourage it or bring worth and value to their beliefs. They end up accepting and practicing the belief as if it were already True instead of first resolving or concluding their beliefs to the value of Truth or Untruth. This is essentially what faith is and it can be a very unproductive and ineffectual tool to the belief process and in evolving and concluding one’s beliefs. I would suggest that they first prove it to be a Truth or an Untruth before accepting and practicing it in their lives. Just because the knowledge or evidence is currently unavailable does not mean anyone should become so impatient with their beliefs that they should apply faith or doubt to them.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Melissa G

I thought I'd been saying that all along in the various threads, along with many others. If you dispute the authenticity of the Smith, and BOM, what other conclusion can you draw !

That Smith is wrong, not lying, and that his followers are mistaken, not deluded.

Furthermore, if one were to accept your conclusion, that seems no reason to isolate Mormonism as an example of "self-delusion of the masses" unless one wished to place emphasise on the self-delusion in the case of Mormonism. You could have just said "any religion that is not my particular brand of paganism".

[Random]

How can there be faith without skepticism?? It is not possible. Doubt is the quintessential element of faith. Doubt enables faith, necessitating belief in order to realize something. That's what it is.

As for the morons eager to waffle about wishful thinking and fantasy, they know their own best for themselves perhaps, but not for other people. A little less arrogance and some more humility would do some people here on this forum some good, I believe.