Mormon Underwear
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- mikotondria30
Designbot, can you think of anything for which there was once a scientific explanation, but that we for now have a religious explantation ?
- I'm saying no, because it always happens the other way round.mikotondria3
- Corvo20
Does it really matter?
- tsongtze0
I dunno. It's one thing to be naive, but it's another to consciously choosing ideas that make a lot less sense.
My sister is a mormon. One day my family and I casually joked about how Native Americans are essentially Asians because they migrated from Asia to America during the Ice Age, and she sternly scolded us, "Native Americans are from Israel. It's a fact."
So what do I say to that?
Anyway, I've seen the Mormon underwear around when I lived with her. I think it's just kind of a leftover thing from the frontier times. It's very 1800s. It seems like they just stuck with whatever rules Joseph Smith and other came up with at the time.
Oh yeah, another really f-ed up thing is that they have really seriously dorky dress code for the temple. Looks like ugly long dresses with floral patterns are the way to go if you want to please the elders.
That's my 2 cents. Personally I think Mormonism took all the reasoning ability away from my sister, but whatever. Maybe they're right. We people without 10 kids are probably going to hell.
- monospaced0
You're actually proving my point, designbot. Science is only bringing us closer to the truth. Thank goodness in the last 300 years we've arrived at a much closer approximation of this planet's age.
- you just stated "Of course we have ways to prove how old the earth is" now you are saying we are getting "much closer"?designbot
- "ways to prove" leads to "closer" my friendmonospaced
- designbot0
False, most scientists would not even hold to the level of faith that you seem to have. They might have an idea of the age of the earth based on the evidence, but nothing is as concrete as you make it out to be. If you need evidence of this, I will post several sources.
There have been hundreds of theories since even the 1700's. In fact, at that time until Georges Buffon came onto the scene most scientists held to a younger earth theory (thousands of years old) and believed that there was one or a series of cataclysmic events that happen in the past (making the earth younger as these theories did not rely on only known natural processes to understand the age of the earth)
- monospaced0
Anyways, a scientific theory based on what is observable usually proves to be fact. If it is ever proved otherwise, it is usually by another scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. Faith won't prove a damn thing.
- monospaced0
There are hard facts about how rocks are formed, how planets and suns are created from stardust and gaseous masses, and how this solar system found equilibrium. The fact that you don't even know about this just shows how naive you are, designbot.
- monospaced0
designbot, have you been hiding under a rock?
Of course we have ways to prove how old the earth is. Based on what is observable (as well as facts about natural sciences) we know almost exactly how old the planet is. I suggest you take a trip down to your Natural History Museum (or watch the Natural Geographic) and start learning.
- morilla0
you know what's funny... I am totally able to admit that I am wrong (as for a majority of intelligent,level headed individuals would be able to) in aspects of religion and what was real or not on that day of judgement ( again, if there is such a fable)
But you ask someone of deep faith if they are able to admit that they are wrong to .... "Nope, not me. I am right, I know I am. It's the only way, it says so in that book..."
- designbot0
irrelevant to the topic Mimio
Besides you have absolutely no way to prove how old the earth is. It is all theory based on what is observable.
- Mimio0
Designbot, how old is the Earth and the human species?
- Mimio0
Oh the irony on top of it, as you're the guy who most vehemently attacks the science surrounding global warming in the other threads.
- designbot0
Okay since you seem to be hung up on the George Washington example, lets use another one. Did Plato exist? certainly we do not have any DNA from him.
- Plato wrote books. There were statues carved in his likeness, DURING his lifetime.monospaced
- Mimio0
Designbot what would be the point of this semantic exercise? To show how you have a hard time determining fact from faith? We have an agreeable definition of what a "fact" is. I suggest you stick to it.
- I only wish to show mono that he has faith as well.designbot
- You CAN'T because I don't require faith in my life.monospaced
- monospaced0
Like I said, it wasn't my definition, but yours. And if you don't know what a fact is, then we can't really have this discussion.
- George Washington existed. That's a fact. If you can't understand that than you have issues.monospaced
- that's why I asked you to give me your definition mono.designbot
- I think he asked you what Your definition was. I am curious as well now.bump79
- There's tons of evidence proving his existence. Not to mention a body in a tomb down in Virginia.Mimio
- Corvo20
Are Mormons in anyway related to Elders?
- designbot0
They can not be "FACTS" based on your definition. If you say I have it wrong, give me your definition of fact then.
- Mimio0
Bill Marriott, Jr., a Mormon, thinks his magical underwear has saved his life many times. He runs one of the biggest Hotel chains in the world.
- monospaced0
Historical facts do not require faith, designbot, because they are facts. I don't need proof that my grandfather existed, because he MUST have. You really sound stupid the more and more you argue the definition of fact.
I still lay it on you to find something about my beliefs that requires faith or shows that I believe in anything mythical.