God enthusiasm

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Smith's book makes a good analogy with the Patterson film, I think. The book makes many historical claims which can be evaluated compared to archaeological and other evidence, just as the film can be evaluated compared to films of primates and humans.

There are many people who have faith in the truth of the book or film, regardless of any contrary evidence, and start with the asssumption that the book/film is true, then try to explain mistakes in any contrary evidence, to protect their faith.

I disagree. The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.

Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.

So Patterson claims he saw a Bigfoot and he offered the film he took as evidence of that sighting.
Smith said he saw and spoke with an angel and was given a couple of stones and a plate of some sort, yet we only have his word on it and no other evidence to evaluate from his claim.

Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful. Who knows? Bob Gimlin knows the truth about Patterson, but I don't think even the editor that wrote down the Book of Mormon while Joseph Smith "translated" was privy to looking in the hat.......
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Have you ever heard the phrase "talking through your hat"? That was literally how Smith wrote the book. He had magic stones called seer stones that he put into his hat. Then he put his face in his hat to get visions. And while still having his face in his hat he would recite what he saw. This is the way all of the frauds at that time did it. Smith had already claimed that he could find treasure using his seer stones. His laughable Urim and Thumin device was two stones that had been ground into hollow rings that were held together with wire, making crude spectacles. Oddly enough, Mormons often make the same claim about Smith that footers make about the PG film. They claim that Smith was too uneducated to have written it without divine guidance much as footers claim that Patterson wasn't sophisticated enough to have faked the PG film.

Very similar.

Yes, like all those customs footers came up with like knocking on trees and howling. There are probably other crazy footer customs that I'm not familiar with.

Yes I'm aware of the story of how the book came into being. I'm not knocking it because I don't know, I wasn't there and I've not seen any evidence to evaluate. I'm not Mormon and have nothing against anyone that is.

People do things that can seem silly to those without a proper understanding of why they are doing them I suppose. I understand the concept and purpose of tree knocking, just not the overall benefit. After all, one could be communicating with woodpeckers if the subject knocking back is never seen. Chris B.

 

[Pup]

I disagree. The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.

Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.

So Patterson claims he saw a Bigfoot and he offered the film he took as evidence of that sighting.
Smith said he saw and spoke with an angel and was given a couple of stones and a plate of some sort, yet we only have his word on it and no other evidence to evaluate from his claim.

Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful. Who knows? Bob Gimlin knows the truth about Patterson, but I don't think even the editor that wrote down the Book of Mormon while Joseph Smith "translated" was privy to looking in the hat.......
Chris B.

I see the two claims as this:
Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was an accurate account of life in pre-Columbian America.
Patterson claimed the film contained images of an actual unidentified North American primate.

Both artifacts, the film and the book, can be evaluated for their accuracy compared to other information from relevant fields.

I reject the claim about angels as silly, just as if Patterson claim angels helped him take the film. But the artifacts and the other claims would remain, and they can be evaluated. (Actually, if information unavailable to Smith corroborated the Book of Mormon, it might lend credence to the existence-of-angels claim, but just the opposite has occurred.)

 

[skeptichaggis]

Smiths claims go beyond human stupidity straight into full blown ,true sky blue,monstrous idiocy. The thing with moronism is that it is easy to completely 100% disprove it. Of the top of my head their is a papyrus scroll that smith claimed to be able to read. What he claims is in the scroll is absolutely wrong,with no wiggle room.
In short the scroll event proves he just made it all up. Kinda like Mohammed did. Or the weirdos that wrote about Jesus the iron age zombie.
We know absolutely smith made it up,yet imbeciles still pile into moronism.

 

[barehl]

The Patterson film is physical evidence of his supposed encounter with a Bigfoot. At least there is the physical film to evaluate from his sighting claim.

Smith had similar flimsy evidence like his copper plates. This is comparable to the Pattysuit tracks and film.

Smith's book is taken 100% by faith alone. We cannot evaluate his "claim" to have received the book thru divine influence as he has no film of the angel that came to him, or the words that appeared on the plate in the hat.

Actually we do have sketches of the markings on the plates. And we have the text itself which shows clear evidence of attempted fraud, much like the Patterson film.

Both men could be lying, or one could be truthful, or both could be truthful.

No, both Smith and Patterson were lying; that is clear.

 

[barehl]

Yes I'm aware of the story of how the book came into being. I'm not knocking it because I don't know, I wasn't there and I've not seen any evidence to evaluate. I'm not Mormon and have nothing against anyone that is.

I wasn't there either but the fraud in the text is undeniable.

It's odd to me that both Mormons and footers base their faith on the claimed incompetence of the founders of their movements. That seems more than a little irrational.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Smith had similar flimsy evidence like his copper plates. This is comparable to the Pattysuit tracks and film.


Actually we do have sketches of the markings on the plates. And we have the text itself which shows clear evidence of attempted fraud, much like the Patterson film.


No, both Smith and Patterson were lying; that is clear.

Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I wasn't there either but the fraud in the text is undeniable.

It's odd to me that both Mormons and footers base their faith on the claimed incompetence of the founders of their movements. That seems more than a little irrational.

Nonsense. It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not. I have personally seen them so I am convinced they exist.

Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. I will not believe anything without proof. Unfortunately that also applies to religion. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.

There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion. They all must be taken with a good dose of faith. If you don't have it you can still attend but you'll do so without the expectations of an afterlife. Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.

I wasn't voicing an opinion. When I give my opinion I say it that way. Smith was a fraud. This is clear from his background and clear from the fake text that he produced along with his fake plates. There is no doubt that this text is fake. Likewise, Patterson was a fraud based on his background and from the fake film that he produced along with his fake tracks. I'm not sure how someone could knowingly produce fake items and not be lying. Are you trying to claim that Smith and Patterson were not lying because they were mentally ill and therefore didn't realize what they were making?

 

[barehl]

It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not.

Yes, that is the nature of faith. It would be nice if I could do that with science but alas science isn't based on faith.

Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.

So bigfootery is a lifestyle choice.

There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion.

And bigfootery is not more flawed than any other irrational belief. Okay.

 

[Craig4]

Having an opinion and proving an opinion is correct are two very different things.
Chris B.

There's no ambiguity, Smith was a liar. His claims are demonstrably false. It is not an opinion to state Smith lied.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Nonsense. It makes no difference if anyone else in the World has seen these creatures or not. I have personally seen them so I am convinced they exist.

Anyone that takes on a subject with faith, must do so at their own risk. No matter the subject. I will not believe anything without proof. Unfortunately that also applies to religion. One can choose to follow a religion though based on personal preference and lifestyle regardless if they accept its core beliefs or not.

There are perfectly good scientists that attend church. The Mormon religion is not flawed any more than any other religion. They all must be taken with a good dose of faith. If you don't have it you can still attend but you'll do so without the expectations of an afterlife. Chris B.

All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.
In the 1830s ,convicted fraudster smith got hold of a Egyptian papyrus and claimed he read it and it was the lost book of Abraham. This very papyrus resurfaced in the mid 20th century and was read by actual egyptologists. It is the book of breathing with what appears to be a part of the book of the dead thrown in.
Not the lost book of Abraham then. Simply a document already well known to egyptologists from several other surviving copies. We don't have the harry potter like gold plates,but we do have the papyrus which proves,beyond ANY doubt smith was a complete liar.

 

[Pup]

All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.
In the 1830s ,convicted fraudster smith got hold of a Egyptian papyrus and claimed he read it and it was the lost book of Abraham. This very papyrus resurfaced in the mid 20th century and was read by actual egyptologists. It is the book of breathing with what appears to be a part of the book of the dead thrown in.
Not the lost book of Abraham then. Simply a document already well known to egyptologists from several other surviving copies. We don't have the harry potter like gold plates,but we do have the papyrus which proves,beyond ANY doubt smith was a complete liar.

The main difference between Mormonism and Protestantism or Catholicism, for example, is that Mormonism was founded so recently that more information about its founding is readily available.

But other than that, I don't see much difference. There's still an equal amount of evidence against Protestantism and Catholicism, if one combines common sense with archaeology and ancient histories.

Do you think there might really have been a talking snake or a guy who could walk on water or raise the dead. Or that there might be historical evidence for Israelites enslaved in Egypt and led out by Moses, but not for Israelites in the pre-Columbian New World? It's all made up, or heavily embellished, every detail.

I just don't see any significant difference. Edted to add: This comes up a lot and it always puzzles me. I think it might be that most people are raised in a Judean-Catholic-Protestant culture than are raised in a Mormon culture, so Mormonism seems subjectively more "weird" than the background noise of the religions they're used to.

 

[skeptichaggis]

The main difference between Mormonism and Protestantism or Catholicism, for example, is that Mormonism was founded so recently that more information about its founding is readily available.

But other than that, I don't see much difference. There's still an equal amount of evidence against Protestantism and Catholicism, if one combines common sense with archaeology and ancient histories.

Do you think there might really have been a talking snake or a guy who could walk on water or raise the dead. Or that there might be historical evidence for Israelites enslaved in Egypt and led out by Moses, but not for Israelites in the pre-Columbian New World? It's all made up, or heavily embellished, every detail.

I just don't see any significant difference. Edted to add: This comes up a lot and it always puzzles me. I think it might be that most people are raised in a Judean-Catholic-Protestant culture than are raised in a Mormon culture, so Mormonism seems subjectively more "weird" than the background noise of the religions they're used to.

I think I made it completely clear that I think all religions are stupid and can be completely and utterly 100% disproved. I was pretty clear about that-it surprises me that anyone reading what I wrote before could reach any other conclusion.
As to disliking moronism more than other christian cults,I'm Scottish, I've never even seen a Mormon. I was also raised completely atheist. I didn't really go to school and had absolutely no knowledge of religion outside history books until I got older. I was pretty shocked to find out people beleived in it. My father told me lots of folk were still religious-I thought he was pulling my leg.
My point about moronism is that we have the actual real papyrus that smith claimed was the lost book of Abraham. We know for a fact its just a fairly common ptolomaic era religious text. Which makes you wonder how moronism gains any converts.
I still don't get how you thought anything I wrote supports any other religious cults claims though. I normally assume good faith and try to be polite. So I will politely assume there is nothing wrong with your reading skills and you just need new glasses.
I'll add a quick edit-you clearly did not read all of the postings on this page,if you had you would have read above my comparison of smiths claims with Islam and the ressurection-i clearly wrote they are all utterlly stupid claims.

 

[Pup]

I still don't get how you thought anything I wrote supports any other religious cults claims though. I normally assume good faith and try to be polite. So I will politely assume there is nothing wrong with your reading skills and you just need new glasses.

A bit touchy on this topic?

Nowhere did I say you were supporting other religious claims. I was responding to this:

All religions are idiotic, but your claim that moronism is no more idiotic than most is wrong. Due to the vast amount of pseudohistorical claims moronism makes,it is in a different leuge from many in its stupidity.

My point was that all Biblical-based religions (as well as others) make a vast amount of pseudohistorical claims; Mormonism is far from in a different league, in that regard.

 

[barehl]

Here's one of the problems. It was claimed that Smith's made up characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. They are not.

The second of Smith's blunders was to give a letter for letter translation to his made up characters. However, the quantity of characters on each plate was vastly different from the amount of text that he produced. In other words, it is 100% impossible that the text he recited came from the plates. This is simple math.

Patterson made similar mistakes.

 

[skeptichaggis]

A bit touchy on this topic?

Nowhere did I say you were supporting other religious claims. I was responding to this:



My point was that all Biblical-based religions (as well as others) make a vast amount of pseudohistorical claims; Mormonism is far from in a different league, in that regard.

As I have said above and elsewhere on site,I think that religious claims are completely disprovable and that "can't prove a negative"arguments are weasel words. Mormonism as I specifically say above is as stupid as Islam and Christianity. That being said the fact that Mormonism is so recent and we know so much about its rise,coupled with the fact that we have the actual documents,not copys of copys and we can completely disprove smiths claims makes it hard to see how Mormonism gains members.
Reading over my last reply to you I concede its tone could have been lighter-my bad.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Here's one of the problems. It was claimed that Smith's made up characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. They are not.

The second of Smith's blunders was to give a letter for letter translation to his made up characters. However, the quantity of characters on each plate was vastly different from the amount of text that he produced. In other words, it is 100% impossible that the text he recited came from the plates. This is simple math.

Patterson made similar mistakes.

Yep,that's what I mean. There's no way to put a spin on this,the papyrus proves utterly that smith just made it up. OK we know Shintoism,Hinduism,Christianity etc are made up to,but inthe mormonism case we have the actual document.
Its not a copy of a copy,its the actual one smith used. We also have a wealth of written evidence from the period-by smiths own hand-that says the papyrus is the lost book of abraham,that's just not true.
It is the recent age of Mormonism ,allied to its bizarre historical claims that,like Scientology make it especially foolish. We understand how ancient religions took hold but when relatively recent religions take of in light of scientific knowledge to the contrary-well it makes you sort of dispare.

 

[carlitos]

moronism ..... moronism .

Unless this is your spell-checker gone bad, the thread could do without the juvenile insults.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Unless this is your spell-checker gone bad, the thread could do without the juvenile insults.

Really,that's your input,you don't want to state your opinion on the topic just comment on the fact I spell Mormonism, like moronism.
I'm a 35yr old who watches anime and reads a lot,don't let anything I do needle you-im not worth it and lifes to short.
If however you have something to say on the claims morons(ha) make about what they call the lost book of Abraham and what real actual egyptologists say regarding the scroll I would,in real not sarcastic interest,like to hear.