Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    139 points cdepman | 18 comments | | HN request time: 2.95s | source | bottom
    1. tzs ◴[] No.23882412[source]
    You should watch the South Park episode "All About Mormons". Be sure to watch all the way to the end.

    (Hint: after thoroughly ripping on Mormons for almost the whole episode, almost as effectively as they ripped on Scientology and Tom Cruise in the earlier episode "Trapped in the Closet", the episode takes a 90 degree turn and ends up being essentially a rebuttal to your comment).

    replies(1): >>23882677 #
    2. derefr ◴[] No.23882423[source]
    In my experience, people who end up as [insert niche religion] because they grow up hearing such stories before they form the faculties to doubt them, aren't necessarily gullible people. They just have cached beliefs, and haven't had cause to prioritize rooting around getting rid of those cached beliefs. (When the cached beliefs don't actually make any predictions that would cause someone to change their behavior, they don't really tend to come into opposition.)

    But yes, if you're the sort of person who consciously joins a niche religion in adulthood, you're probably the same sort of person who will believe other pitches.

    replies(2): >>23882527 #>>23882540 #
    3. tyingq ◴[] No.23882428[source]
    To me, it's not inherently more outlandish than stories associated with any other popular religion.
    replies(1): >>23882496 #
    4. cornstalks ◴[] No.23882492[source]
    > magic plates

    I'm not aware of any mystical properties ascribed to the plates. They're just ordinary plates of gold.

    > from a magic bag

    I'm not aware of any bag, especially one with mystical properties. Joseph says the plates were retrieved from an ordinary stone box buried in an ordinary hill, not a "magic" bag.

    You're welcome to be critical, but this is just disingenuous.

    replies(1): >>23883451 #
    5. ragnese ◴[] No.23882496[source]
    Agreed. However, that's not exactly exonerating Mormonism or other popular religions...
    replies(1): >>23882542 #
    6. Osiris ◴[] No.23882514[source]
    How is insulting an entire population of people because of their beliefs a tolerated attitude? I don't see how it's any different than people that are anti-LGBT or racist. You may disagree but insults are not constructive and honestly, quite offensive.
    replies(1): >>23882622 #
    7. lcall ◴[] No.23882527[source]
    FWIW, I'm (very gratefully) a member of the Church being mentioned here (more in my profile link, no product sales or JS at my simple site, but I explain why I am a believer in some I hope skimmable detail), and I have precisely 0.00 interest in MLMs.

    Edit: A few times in my life someone has given me a pitch, someone I knew, but it never seemed to use "position" as leverage, and there are policies against such things I've heard announced at various times, like an ongoing policy against using membership lists for marketing, buildings for business ventures, etc. But it's not surprising that if someone joins such a business they are asked to pitch to those they know.

    8. tyingq ◴[] No.23882542{3}[source]
    No, but it doesn't mean they aren't intelligent either. Being surrounded for a long time, by people of a certain thinking has a strong effect. Regardless of how smart you are. Theranos investors, for example.
    9. skosch ◴[] No.23882622[source]
    Insulting people is a bad idea in general, but there is an obvious difference between religion on one hand and sexual orientation/race on the other: you can choose (and change) the former but not the latter.
    replies(2): >>23882931 #>>23883400 #
    10. jawns ◴[] No.23882677[source]
    Did you mean to say 180 degree turn?
    replies(1): >>23882861 #
    11. tzs ◴[] No.23882861{3}[source]
    Nope. The end left all the ripping on Mormon origins and founding beliefs they had done throughout the episode intact. A 180 turn would be something that flipped that.

    The turn at the end was saying that all that doesn’t matter. They went off perpendicular to where they had been going, not opposite of where they had been heading.

    12. jawns ◴[] No.23882931{3}[source]
    I've heard this "you can choose one but not the other" argument for years, and it reveals some incorrect assumptions about religious beliefs. Ask religious believers (or non-believers) if they can just up and choose the reverse. They can't, at least not while remaining true to themselves, which is the same threshold that is used when celebrating a person's coming out.

    You might counter that religious beliefs shift more easily than sexual orientation. The prevailing narrative used to be that sexual orientation is totally static. It was useful and effective to frame things this way in the fight for gay rights; it asked, "Why punish someone for something they can't control?" But now that we're at a point in history where every brand under the sun is comfortable running Pride marketing campaigns, what was once an open secret is now more out in the open. LGBT folks have become more comfortable acknowledging that there is indeed fluidity and spectrum when it comes to sexual preferences, orientation, and gender identity. That doesn't mean that a person's orientation can be forcibly changed, but there is an acknowledgement that preferences can sometimes change organically, and we see that with religion as well.

    replies(1): >>23886068 #
    13. ◴[] No.23883400{3}[source]
    14. pmdulaney ◴[] No.23883451[source]
    I am an Evangelical Christian. If a non-Christian were to say to me something about "The Immaculate Conception", I think it would be a tad disingenuous to just say, "We don't believe in any Immaculate Conception!" It would be more forthcoming to say, "Well, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that asserts that Mary was born without sin; we Evangelicals don't believe that. We do, however, believe that Jesus Christ was born without sin."

    Likewise, I think you would be more forthcoming in admitting that while LDS does not believe there are any "mystical properties" ascribed to the plates, there were indeed "mystical properties" ascribed to the glasses, the Urim and Thummim, used by Joseph Smith to translate them.

    replies(1): >>23883706 #
    15. cornstalks ◴[] No.23883706{3}[source]
    The parent comment mentioned "magic plates", "magic bag", and "magic rock". I specifically called out the "magic plates" and "magic bag" as disingenuous and intentionally didn't rebut "magic rock" because I didn't think that one was necessarily disingenuous.

    But now that other people have flagged the comment it's not obvious what I selectively replied to.

    replies(1): >>23883901 #
    16. pmdulaney ◴[] No.23883901{4}[source]
    Fair enough. I was not able to read the original comment.
    17. skosch ◴[] No.23886068{4}[source]
    You're right, changing one's worldview is difficult, and we certainly shouldn't force anyone to endorse views they don't hold.

    That said, hitching one's identity to unfalsifiable beliefs ("there is nothing science can't understand", "this book is the word of god", etc.) is immature and stunting. It's human nature, but that doesn't make it worthy of respect or celebration. We should strive to get comfortable with the frightening uncertainty in our mental models of the world.

    Therefore, insulting religion or irreligion isn't inherently problematic in my book. (Coincidentally, offending people is a terrible way of encouraging them to be more open-minded, but that's a different question.)

    18. dang ◴[] No.23901052[source]
    Religious flamewar will get you banned here. No more of this please.

    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    Edit: you've been breaking the site guidelines by repeatedly posting unsubstantive, snarky comments. We've asked you multiple times to stop. Please fix this.