LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

I wonder where Pirie claims that the argumentum ad "so" allows you to substitute your own inventions for what a poster has actually posted.

You appear to have difficulty in understanding the role of analogy in argumentation.

"Divine inspiration"; "mundane explanations". Or, as reality woulde have it, "superstition" and "reality".

Quintessential atheistic thinking.

You need to demonstrate, with actual evidence (rather than, for instance, appealing to the magical), the mere existence of the "divine afflatus" (as distinct from, say, delusion and self-deception) before you can honestly compare it with, or assess its superiority over, reality-based "explanations".

The creators of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art have already done that.

One wonders why so many "divine inspirations" flatly contradict each other; why so many "revelations" come at the heels of legislative action...

Here you commit the fallacy of one-sided assessment. Pirie writes: "Many of the decisions we are called upon to weigh up have both advantages and drawbacks. The fallacy of the one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of the case is taken into consideration. Decisions usually require both pros and cons to be taken account of, and a preference made for the side that wins on balance. To look at one side only is to avoid judgment of that balance." (How to Win Every Argument, Madsen Pirie, pp. 121-122)

It seems here that you are advancing the claim that Messiah is somehow significant because you claim Handel claimed to believe in "divine inspiration".

We were discussing the role of divine inspiration in the creation of exceptional inventions and works of art (or, as you prefer, as an explanation for how such inventions/works of art came to be). We weren't discussing the merits of those inventions and works of art. In any event, the Messiah is "somehow significant" because it is a musical composition of surpassing beauty.

I wonder if you would explain how, in your understanding, a composer's superstitions advance her compositions.

"Superstitions" don't advance "her compositions." Little wonder that you wonder.

Oddly enough, your first mention of Pirie in these threads was to accuse me (incorrectly) of employing his technique of intentionally resorting to logical fallacy in order to "win" an argument. I am curious as to why you think that others "would do well" to practice Pirie's suggested techniques.

Isn't the answer obvious? They would do well to apply Pirie's advice in order to identify and critique fallacious arguments. Of course, if one believes he/she knows more about what Pirie calls "the use and abuse of logic," then there is no reason for he/she to read the book.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nothing you have written changes my point; i.e., divine inspiration has been operative in the creation of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art.

Despite your devotion to Pirie, building an "argument" on a logical fallacy is not sound thinking, to say nothing of being honest.

At best, you can say that certain artists have been under the impression that "divine inspiration" was "operative" in their acts of creativity.

Charlie Parker claimed that smack was the driving force behind his creativity. Shall we celebrate musicians using heroin, and advance the superstition that mind-altering drugs enhance creativity?

Not to mention, if a 'god' "inspired" Handel, it was the 'god' he worshipped--and his own sect still considers your club not to be xian at all. Handel would have vigorously denied he was inspired by the ex-human alien your club elevates to 'god'-hood.

Are you asserting that any or all 'gods' can provide "divine inspiration"?

Or, as seems more likely, are you simply indulging yourself in your habit of cherry-picking and special pleading?

How do we know that? The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired.

You really do not understand the problem with circular reasoning, and special pleading, at all, do you? You demonstrably do not understand epistemology.

At best, we can be said to "know" that people have said that they, themselves, believe that their works were "divinely inspired"; which is, of course, no more evidence for "divine inspiration" than your own beleif in Smith's inventions is evidence that "there has to be a pony".

Not to mention which "divinity" is to be supposed to be providing the "inspiration". How do you address the creedal distinctions among those claiming "divine inspiration" from different 'gods' than yours?

You are free, obviously, to disbelieve them, in which case you suppose you know more about how they accomplished what they did than they do.

You are missing (overlooking? being dishonestabout?) the fact that, at best, some people claim "divine inspiration". Some people claim to "speak with the dead"; some claim to be able to read invented languages. Are their beliefs to be taken as evidence of the "immortality" of the "soul", or of the actual existence of "Reformed Egyptian"? I wonder where you, personally,draw the line.

I have not said, contrary to what your questions imply, that divine inspiration is necessary to develop, for example, something comparable to our "incredible insights into computer theory." Of course, you don't know whether or not divine inspiration was involved in said creation. You are merely parroting the atheistic position.

No. It is, in fact, you who are making an unevidenced claim; you who are toeing a party line. Unless and until you provide evidence for the mere existence of a 'god' (and of course, explain the problem with all of the different 'gods'), you indulge yourself in fallacy when you make claims about that 'god' "inspiring" creative work. Again, you are advancing a claim for "divine inspiration" without bothering to provide the least foundation for your claim.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Personally, I find it illogical, and would instead look for another explanation: that there's something in the human brain which gives people a sensation of being inspired, but in fact, it's an artifact of the brain which crosses all cultures. Heck, as an atheist, I still get that sensation when I manage to do something really unexpected and cool--it's like it's greater than I could have done alone. But I also still recognize that the result, on sober reflection, could be average dreck worthy at best of the inside of a Hallmark card, while I've seen others claim equal or lower quality is indeed straight from God because of the amazing way it makes them feel. Dunning-Kruger at work.

" . . . the amazing way it makes them feel" doesn't explain the amazing way it makes tens of millions of admirers and critics feel, generation after generation. Do all of them have "something in the human brain . . . ?"

The problem is that truly great art--or great evil--aren't outside the range of what humans can do.

Indeed.

There's no need to say that a god is inspiring them or helping them.

Not if one is an atheist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired.

skyrider44, does every claim of divine inspiration mean that all of the claimed divinities exist? Or only yours?

 

[tsig]

" . . . the amazing way it makes them feel" doesn't explain the amazing way it makes tens of millions of admirers and critics feel, generation after generation. Do all of them have "something in the human brain . . . ?"



Indeed.



Not if one is an atheist.

Why would a human emotion be evidence of anything other than humans have emotions?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You appear to have difficulty in understanding the role of analogy in argumentation.

How very interesting. You appear to be taking the position that calling something an "analogy" somehow makes it acceptable for you to say falsehoods about another poster's words. This, truly, would explain much.

Your "analogy" about what turnigtest said is not an honest characterization of turingtest's words. I suppose that's acceptable behaviour to a Pirievian.

Quintessential atheistic thinking.

Actually, quintessential realistic thinking. Unless you demonstrate the bare existence of not just a 'god', but your 'god'; claiming to explain the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics of the 'god' for which you have failed to provide the least scintilla of actual evidence is irrational.

Yes, it is a-theistic thinking--it does not uncritically adopt the superstition of the existence of one or another of the multiple thousands of asserted 'gods' as "explanations" for actual phenomena. It is, in fact, thinking without resorting to 'gods'.

The creators of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art have already done that.

No. Unfounded assertions about the operation of a "divinity" (leaving aside the insurmountable problem of which "divinity") are no more evidence of the existence, and operation, of that divinity than a quarter under your pillow is evidence of the existence and operation of fairies. People may believe their work was "inspired" by Marduk, or Huehuecoyotl, or Manu'u Legba, or "Gentile White Guy, Meek and Mild"; their belief is evidence for just that: their belief. Nothing more.

To say nothing of the other side of the coin: if we are to give 'god' credit for (what you claim to be) "great" works, may we also blame 'god' for the moutains of drek produced in its name? (I'm looking at you, Kurt Kaiser! Yes, and you, DeSilva, Brown, and Henderson!) To say nothing of all those dreary torture-porn crucifixes...

Here you commit the fallacy of one-sided assessment. Pirie writes: "Many of the decisions we are called upon to weigh up have both advantages and drawbacks. The fallacy of the one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of the case is taken into consideration. Decisions usually require both pros and cons to be taken account of, and a preference made for the side that wins on balance. To look at one side only is to avoid judgment of that balance." (How to Win Every Argument, Madsen Pirie, pp. 121-122)

Odd claim to make, by one whose sect "realized" that polygamy was (once again) not 'gods' will, as a consequence of Utah being denied statehood; and realized that "negroes" could in fact be priests (just as the "white and delightsome" members) as a consequence of civil rights legislation. How does your sect's demonstration of its willingness to trim its doctrine to the law speak of that doctrine's "divine inspiration"?

We were discussing the role of divine inspiration in the creation of exceptional inventions and works of art (or, as you prefer, as an explanation for how such inventions/works of art came to be). We weren't discussing the merits of those inventions and works of art. In any event, the Messiah is "somehow significant" because it is a musical composition of surpassing beauty.

And its "beauty" is a human invention. No matter how much you claim "divine inspiration" (and, I remind you, inspiration from a "divinity" very different from the one to which your club makes obeisance), there is no actual evidence for the effect you claim.

"Superstitions" don't advance "her compositions." Little wonder that you wonder.

That's what I said. The superstition of "divine inspiration" (with all of its contradictory problems), cannot be demonstrated to be the source of the "beauty" in works of which you approve; more so since it has not ever been demonstrated to exist. And yet, you continue to advance the unsupported as an "explanation".

Isn't the answer obvious? They would do well to apply Pirie's advice in order to identify and critique fallacious arguments. Of course, if one believes he/she knows more about what Pirie calls "the use and abuse of logic," then there is no reason for he/she to read the book.

I prefer not to adopt the Pirievian pose that intentionally employing fallacious reasoning is a valid method by which to "win" an argument. Your club's take on false witness may, or course, give you the moral flexibility to do so.

 

[John Jones]

You appear to have difficulty in understanding the role of analogy in argumentation.

No, that would be you.

[...]

Here you commit the fallacy of one-sided assessment.

There is no such logical fallacy.

Pirie writes: "Many of the decisions we are called upon to weigh up have both advantages and drawbacks. The fallacy of the one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of the case is taken into consideration. [...]

Pirie is wrong.

 

[Pup]

" . . . the amazing way it makes them feel" doesn't explain the amazing way it makes tens of millions of admirers and critics feel, generation after generation. Do all of them have "something in the human brain . . . ?"

Of course. All of them have human brains. I don't understand what you mean.

Are you suggesting that only certain humans have brains able to respond to inspiration, and that others do not? That seems to directly contradict LDS doctrine, which says that all people are capable of inspiration from the LDS god if they wish to receive it, and that even those who directly reject the LDS divinity may receive at least a portion of inspiration from it so far as their religion contains the truth (if I understand correctly).

The problem, from an LDS point of view, is that so many have claimed inspiration from non-LDS gods. Are we to take their word for it that there are other gods inspiring them and that Athena, let's say, could be a real goddess in the LDS worldview if some random artist says so?

Again, I think that's outside of LDS doctrine, and that only the LDS god would be considered the source of inspiration even if the artist doesn't recognize the LDS godhood. In other words, it's not really Athena who inspired that statue even if that's what the artist claimed, it's the LDS god speaking through the artist.

But that would require claiming to know more about the artist's source of his or her own inspiration, which you seemed to denegrate in your previous response.

I'd be curious to understand more about where (which god) you believe inspiration is coming from, when non-Mormons such as Handel claim to receive it. How real are other gods and their attributes according to LDS doctrine?

Not if one is an atheist.

True, I meant "need" in an emotional sense. I could certainly see that a theist, or an LDS member specifically, would have an emotional need to claim a god is helping them.

 

[SezMe]

" . . . the amazing way it makes them feel" doesn't explain the amazing way it makes tens of millions of admirers and critics feel, generation after generation. Do all of them have "something in the human brain . . . ?"

Actually, yes. Our brains all have the same structure, organization and mode of operation (excluding neonatal and post birth damage). Of course, on top of this basic structure is cultural and environmental conditioning. But millions of people are, in fact, inspired by the same things because of that structure and conditioning. Millions are awed by different things for the same reasons.

Spock was fiction, right?

 

[skyrider44]

How very interesting. You appear to be taking the position that calling something an "analogy" somehow makes it acceptable for you to say falsehoods about another poster's words.

Here you obligingly provide proof that you don't understand the role of analogy in argumentation, opting—presumably as a diversionary tactic—to characterize my statement as a falsehood.

Your "analogy" about what turnigtest said is not an honest characterization of turingtest's words. I suppose that's acceptable behaviour to a Pirievian.

I note, not without amusement, that you find it necessary to take refuge in attacking any source that challenges/questions your position. Desperation, perhaps?

Actually, quintessential realistic thinking. Unless you demonstrate the bare existence of not just a 'god', but your 'god'; claiming to explain the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics of the 'god' for which you have failed to provide the least scintilla of actual evidence is irrational.

You appear to be addicted to the overuse of nouns (to say nothing of adjectives) as in "the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics of the . . . ."
That tendency weakens rather than strengthens your argument because it suggests a straightforward statement will not suffice. More than that, however, it causes you to make claims and to level charges that are without merit. I have not implied that I know the "the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics" of God. Hmmm . . . I wonder if that constitutes dishonesty on your part.

Yes, it is a-theistic thinking--it does not uncritically adopt the superstition of the existence of one or another of the multiple thousands of asserted 'gods' as "explanations" for actual phenomena. It is, in fact, thinking without resorting to 'gods'.

Not quite. It's thinking based on the assumption that humankind knows everything there is to know . . . that there cannot possibly be another dimension beyond the one discernible by the few, fallible senses we possess. As such, it's anti-scientific, foreclosing on the exploration of uncharted territory.

No. Unfounded assertions about the operation of a "divinity" (leaving aside the insurmountable problem of which "divinity") are no more evidence of the existence, and operation, of that divinity than a quarter under your pillow is evidence of the existence and operation of fairies.

They are "unfounded" to you because you kneel at the altar of the "god" of science. In fact, it's absolutely essential to you that they be "unfounded" lest your comfort zone be put in peril. Let's see, how does Pirie put it? Oh, yes, Blinding with science.

People may believe their work was "inspired" by Marduk, or Huehuecoyotl, or Manu'u Legba, or "Gentile White Guy, Meek and Mild"; their belief is evidence for just that: their belief. Nothing more.

You make an assumption you cannot prove, and a reckless one at that. I doubt you have gained entrance into the minds of some of the monumental figures in the arts and sciences. You are conjecturing—nothing more.

I'm going to stop here because I may get a "thread closed" notice. I'll resume tomorrow.

 

[Giordano]

Nothing you have written changes my point; i.e., divine inspiration has been operative in the creation of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art. How do we know that? The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired. You are free, obviously, to disbelieve them, in which case you suppose you know more about how they accomplished what they did than they do.

I have not said, contrary to what your questions imply, that divine inspiration is necessary to develop, for example, something comparable to our "incredible insights into computer theory." Of course, you don't know whether or not divine inspiration was involved in said creation. You are merely parroting the atheistic position.

Turing said that his inspriration was not dinive, but you tell me that I don't know that was really true. Hayden said that his inspiration was divine, but you tell me that must have been really true. Why one but not the other? Why must it be true if one person says something, but not if the other person says something?

As others have asked, what of people who fly planes into buildings who say their inspiration was God's word? I suppose you believe that must not have been truly God. If so, how does one know if God is inspiring them, or if they are only hearing imaginary voices? Hayden did not believe in the BofM, but believed in a different religion all together- why would this false religion (according to your Church) inspire anybody?

Also, what of all the different gods out there that different people believe inspired them- do they all exist and fractionally assign the work to different gods to be more efficient?

 

[Giordano]

Skyrider44,

I notice that you continue to avoid providing facts, but prefer to get into long discussions about words rather than provide the actual evidence requested of you. Do you have a reason for this?

 

[bruto]

So, if you're going to count divine inspiration as something actually divine in origin, then unless you become like the Taliban and destroy the artifacts of false religions, you have painted yourself into a corner. If the Taj Mahal and the Cathedral of Rheims and the Kremlin and the Mormon Tabernacle and the circular saw and the sacred works of Handel and Poulenc are all going to be credited to divine inspiration, and if you believe there is only one god, then have you not presented a good argument against the very sectarianism that makes it possible to contend, as you and many others do, that your beliefs should govern the lives of all?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here you obligingly provide proof that you don't understand the role of analogy in argumentation, opting—presumably as a diversionary tactic—to characterize my statement as a falsehood.

And you continue your error.

You raised up an argument of herring-scented straw; a false characterization of what a poster said; then presumed to argue against your own falsehood. Calling it an "analogy" doesnot make it any less false a characterization.

Explaining to your your errors (and your falsehoods) is not a diversion.

I note, not without amusement, that you find it necessary to take refuge in attacking any source that challenges/questions your position. Desperation, perhaps?

One wonders to what you refer here, given what I actually wrote.

You appear to be addicted to the overuse of nouns (to say nothing of adjectives) as in "the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics of the . . . ."
That tendency weakens rather than strengthens your argument because it suggests a straightforward statement will not suffice. More than that, however, it causes you to make claims and to level charges that are without merit. I have not implied that I know the "the abilities, behaviours, and characteristics" of God. Hmmm . . . I wonder if that constitutes dishonesty on your part.

I do appreciate your attempts to "help". You will, I am confident, understand that I prefer instruction from those who do not resort to dishonesty; and from those whose styles I find congenial. But I do appreciate your efforts.

You have made claims about the behaviours (claiming that 'god' "disaproves" of parts of its own creation); abilities (claiming that 'god' has "inspired" certain works of western art); and characteristics (making unsubstantiated claims about 'gods' existence).

I am confident that you are aware of your dishonesty--you employ it frequently enough that it certainly seems intentional--from your dishonest editing, redacting, and altering others words; through your wholesale adoption of Pirievian techniques of knowingly and intentionally resorting to logical fallacies to "win" arguments; to your habits of diversion and derail.

Not to mention your conscious technique of avoiding the very questions that are the subject of this thread.

Not quite. It's thinking based on the assumption that humankind knows everything there is to know . . . that there cannot possibly be another dimension beyond the one discernible by the few, fallible senses we possess. As such, it's anti-scientific, foreclosing on the exploration of uncharted territory.[/.quote]

No,not at all, and I am sorry you are so wrapped up in your sectarian superstitions that you do not see it.

You want to claim that your 'god' must exist; and that asking for evidence of its existence is impious.

I insist that to claim your 'god' exits (or any 'god' or 'gods' exist), you have the privilege of demonstrating that existence.

Your continued false accusation that I have ever said that all that can be known is already known is, simply, not true, as you are aware. Please feel free to demonstrate where I have said, or implied, such; failing that, please feel free to stop making this dishonest accusation.

You are, as I have said all along, free to wallow in whatever sectarian hic est deus that comforts you. You really ought to outgrow insisting that your belief gives you leave to define reality.

Alternatively, you could provide actual evidence for the 'god' (so very different form the 'god' of, for instance, the xian canon) whenever you were able.

They are "unfounded" to you because you kneel at the altar of the "god" of science.[/.quote]

No, not at all, and it is clumsily dishonest of you to argue so.

Your assertions of the operation of a "divinity" are unfounded because there is no foundation for them. You have not demonstrated the actual existence of your 'god', or any 'god' (nor yet any "divinity"); without which the claimof "divine" inspiration is, by definition, unfounded.

In fact, it's absolutely essential to you that they be "unfounded" lest your comfort zone be put in peril. Let's see, how does Pirie put it? Oh, yes, Blinding with science.

Oddly enough, it is not I who am reduced to the desperation of adopting admittedly fallacious reasoning in order to "win" arguments.

Do feel free to begin providing evidence for this 'god' your club posits.

You make an assumption you cannot prove, and a reckless one at that. I doubt you have gained entrance into the minds of some of the monumental figures in the arts and sciences. You are conjecturing—nothing more.

I wonder when you will address the problem of which of the thousands of invented 'gods' "inspired" Messiah (and why that 'god' is not, for instance, your mob's 'god'). The claim of "divine inspiration" is based upon the assumption of a "divinity". The fact that an artist believes it was her 'god' that "inspired her is, in fact, evidence of her belief (and nothing more).

I'm going to stop here because I may get a "thread closed" notice. I'll resume tomorrow.

Perhaps, if you return, you might finally address:

1. In your own, personal opinion,when are the events described in the exciting "american chapters" of Smith's BoM to be supposed to have taken place?

2. In your own, personal opinion, where is the civilization ("covered the land"..."thousands of years") Smith described to be supposed to have been located (and why has no evidence of its existence been hinted at in the civilizations that actually inhabited the pre-colombian americas)?

3. I am also still waiting for you to explain your own, personal opinion about þͤ Fludde).

Consider abandoning your attempts at protoepistemology and addressing real questions, there's a lad.

 

[turingtest]

So according to you, there is no learning curve. Knowledge acquisition by a person or organization or country doesn't exist. Positions a country took 50 years ago are fixed. Hmmm . . . I wonder how the Berlin Wall came down.

Sure there's a learning curve- it's the one by which the "divine inspiration" of 50 (or 150) years ago is shown to be nonsense by mere "mundane explanation" today. So nice to see you acknowledge this point. So what's the worth of the divine inspiration of today? My guess- nowhere near its cost.

Whether or not divine inspiration is superior to mundane explanations depends on the issue being addressed. Some highly creative individuals, for example, have attributed their creativity to divine inspiration. One such individual was George Frideric Handel, who—as you must know—composed the Messiah.

Great. So claimed "divine inspiration" can be the source of some great music (or other art). But (as others have pointed out) it's not necessary- Prokofiev, Bartok, Rimsky-Korsakov, and (my personal favorite) David Gilmour were/are all atheists. And before you go there (ala Pirie), your opinion of the relative merits of those artists (or their themes) is irrelevant- music is, by definition, a matter of taste (it's also a matter of math, but that may be more than an exponent of "divine inspiration" can handle- you should think about it anyway). What good is "divine inspiration" as an explanation if it's not consistently applicable?

Anyway, that doesn't make it such a great source for stands on issues such as the proper place of minorities (black people then or gay people now) in society- nice to see your acknowledgement of this point also. As tsig says, you can't claim god as a source of eternal divine inspiration, then dump him when society evolves, via mundane explanation, to different standards- he's either god, with a consistent "truth," or he's not. That the church has evolved in some stances from what they preached by "divine inspiration" before is evidence for their human adaptability to mundane (in the word's original sense) circumstances, and, in fact, against the claimed divinity of the inspiration.

It's available in paperback. You would do well to read it.

Why? Is he where you learned to make your opponents' points for them and pretend you're making some argument against them? I learned that by the time I was around six years old- "I know you are but what am I?!!?!??!?!"

 

[Pup]

Pirie lists and explains common logical errors, then demonstrates how to use fallacious reasoning to "win" arguments, with no regard for content. Pirie's fans usually vacillate between using Pirie's "techniques", and accusing others of having to stoop to using Pirie's techniques.

So I've got a minute and I'm bored enough waiting for a doctor's appointment to finally address the mention of Pirie.

Not familiar with him/her in particular but I know a bit on debating technique from years ago, and what strikes me is that such techniques are really only useful for winning debates, which admittedly is kinda fun and actually I think is enjoyable to watch as performance art, the way someone else might watch a boxing match or chess tourney.

Slowvehicle and Skyrider44 have equally aggressive but totally different styles that make them great opponents, as far as putting on a good show.

But winning debates is totally separate from getting at understanding, or TRVTH, or anything really important. Not that winning a debate will necessarily lead one away from those things, so there's no shame in using good debating techniques in a debate. But it's a way of manipulating the feelings or words of one's opponent or one's audience to convince him/her that he's wrong and you're right, and that's all it really does.

I recall "debating" with my mother's neighbor about where my mother's propertly line ran, and totally winning the debate so the neighbor didn't even take my mother to court as she originally announced. And then discovering, oopsy, that I was wrong and the neighbor was right and the neighbor did own an extra foot or so. We let it drop because it didn't really matter, but it was an embarrassing lesson that the best debating techniques can blind one to the fact that one is debating on the totally wrong side of a question.

So if I'm enjoying a debate, I just sit back and admire a good punch thrown here or there. But if I'm looking for deeper real-life insight, the last thing that would impress me is good debating technique alone, because for real-life insight, one needs to look beyond the superficial technique of debating skills.

 

[halleyscomet]

"These studies support the idea that the Book of Mormon was originally written in Hebrew. Most of the idioms in the book appear to be typically Hebrew; there appear to be few which could be called Egyptian. To be sure Egyptian names are found in the Nephite record, and other evidences point to the fact that Nephite historians were acquainted with the language and customs of Egypt, but the text proper shows the strong influence of Hebrew."

So even the Mormons scholars admit the claims of "Reformed Egyptian" are a flat out lie, inconsistent with the claimed history of the Book of Mormon.

The BoM was either fabricated in imitation of the KJV, or was originally written in Hebrew.

I'm surprised you posted evidence that attacks the claims of the mystical "Reformed Egyptian."

 

[Dissolution]

Skyrider44,

I notice that you continue to avoid providing facts, but prefer to get into long discussions about words rather than provide the actual evidence requested of you. Do you have a reason for this?

Pirie's book probably suggested that you can't lose an argument if you don't engage in one.

 

[halleyscomet]

I said that Joseph Smith "could have" extracted the Hebrew idioms from the Bible. I don't know that he did so, and I don't think you do, either.

Frankly a lot of those idioms could easily have been appropriated culturally as well as by actually reading the Bible. The Bible was a critical book during Smith's time, even more so than today. In many homes it was the only reading material avaialbe, so a lot of kids learned to read using it. Between sermons, Bible quotes in public speeches and the general structure of society at the time, it would be nearly impossible to NOT be familiar with may of those idioms and consider them "Biblical" sounding.

The presence of some of these idioms in the Book of Mormon being used as some sort of evidence of divine origin is, especially given the "Reformed Egyptian" garbage, possibly the single dumbest religious argument I've ever heard. It's on par with arguing Santa clause is real because we know the name of his reindeer, or asserting that a child who can sing "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" must have been personally visited by Santa to be taught the song.

Actually, the Santa argument makes MORE sense than the Mormon one, because at least Santa isn't inserting idioms from a language that the song wasn't even written in, and then using those idioms as proof of inspiration by Santa!

Why can't Mormons just say the Hebrew idioms must have been inserted by God to make the translation sound more familiar to English speaking North Americans of the time? Why bring up all these Hebrew idioms as evidence of something when THE TEXT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN HEBREW?!?!

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>...winning debates is totally separate from getting at understanding, or TRVTH, or anything really important...<respectful snip for focus>

When I coached debate, I would discuss the reality that "TRVTH" is only one of the weapons of debate--and not even the strongest one. Pirie identifies logical fallacies in order to explain how to get away with using them.

"Winning" a "debate" does not affect reality in any way.