LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could admit that you were wrong when you claimed that faith is required to formulate a scientific hypothesis.

Or perhaps you could address this:

Why is it that the whole of the scientific community studying human genetics has reached a conclusion that differs from that of the studies published by the Maxwell Institute? Are you now going to characterize the vast majority of the human genetics community as being anti-Mormons bent on "savagely" discrediting the BoM? We aren't talking about about minor inconsistencies or simple errors in language mechanics. The rather grand claims that Joseph Smith wrote in the BoM have absolutely no supporting evidence. There is zero evidence of the civilization described. There is nothing in archaeology, anthropology or hereditary surveys to confirm the claim.
 
Shalamar said:
PLEASE follow forum conventions, and place the quoted material FIRST, then your own words.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that humility and respect for the conventions of other groups is typically high among Mormons. So long as it's moral and legal and not contrary to church teaching most Mormon's, when in Rome, will do as the Romans do. Such sentiment is not monolithic though.
 
Shalamar said:
PLEASE follow forum conventions, and place the quoted material FIRST, then your own words.
Click to expand...

She doesn't do that because she's afraid that if someone clicks on her stats to see her last posts, they'll see the quoted material first, and attribute it to her.

Would *someone* with some authority please tell her that's not the way it works? Obviously she won't believe anyone else, and she's been brainwashed taught not to believe the evidence of her own eyeballs. ;(
 
Janadele said:
Hopefully skyrider's meaning was time to move on from that topic, not from the thread.

His wisdom and knowledge are needed. :)
Click to expand...

It appears to me less like wisdom than a desire to evade a number of questions and issues that he seems unwilling to address.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
To reemphasize my previous point, justifiable knowledge isn't something that can reasonably come from revelation.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the above, here's where I can see a parallel to religious knowledge.

For example: I believe that enslaving human beings from birth is wrong. I couldn't care less whether my belief can be proven true by the logic of game theory or economics or anything else. Unlike most other things, I wouldn't change my mind even if someone could logically show me why my belief was wrong. It's something I simply "know." And I fully admit that had I been raised 200 years ago in the American south, I would probably "know" just as surely that slavery was right. So it's not even an intrinsic part of "me."

All the same arguments against religious "knowledge" apply. There's no difference between someone who is sincere, certain and believes slavery is right, and someone who is sincere, certain and believes slavery is wrong.

But either I'm entirely unique among atheists, or there are still various things that most people "just know," like I know that slavery is wrong.

The disagreement, therefore, must be over which things are acceptable to know that way.

Facts about life in the early Americas in the Book of Mormon, or about Jesus's career in the New Testament, are testable and subject to evidence, and I think those can easily be placed in the bin of "don't believe without evidence."

Same for complex explanations that slowly get pushed into the gaps and hedged around with increasing justifications, like explanations of a god's attributes and how he/she/it interacts with humans.

But I can still feel the sensation of "knowing" without evidence or in spite of evidence. I just have a huge disagreement with religious people over what things can be known that way.
 
dafydd said:
The Outer Darkness? We're in Harry Potter land.
Click to expand...
Ah. See, that's where it really falls to bits. If I, as an atheist, do not convert to Mormonism, then the "Outer Darkness" is verbotten for me. Therefore, playing the odds, it is better to remain atheist, as I cannot be consigned to the "Outer Darkness" by definition. The logical consequence of all this is that the Mormons themselves are saying it's a better bet not to be a Mormon.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Ah. See, that's where it really falls to bits. If I, as an atheist, do not convert to Mormonism, then the "Outer Darkness" is verbotten for me. Therefore, playing the odds, it is better to remain atheist, as I cannot be consigned to the "Outer Darkness" by definition. The logical consequence of all this is that the Mormons themselves are saying it's a better bet not to be a Mormon.
Click to expand...

Great, it's the Inner Sanctum for us.
 
Therefore, playing the odds, it is better to remain atheist, as I cannot be consigned to the "Outer Darkness" by definition.
Click to expand...

Yes; no matter where you go it will be a step above that.
 
My father has embraced his Native American heritage. He has decided to go to the happy hunting grounds to look for gold nuggets and Marilyn Monroe.

I'm thinking about joining him, albeit my search would probably be for exotic food. The best BLT and the most sublime chocolates...maybe the most awesome milk shake the universe has ever known?

It has much more appeal to me than the Inner Sanctum.
 
DragonLady said:
My father has embraced his Native American heritage. He has decided to go to the happy hunting grounds to look for gold nuggets and Marilyn Monroe.

I'm thinking about joining him, albeit my search would probably be for exotic food. The best BLT and the most sublime chocolates...maybe the most awesome milk shake the universe has ever known?

It has much more appeal to me than the Inner Sanctum.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Sanctum_Mystery

Much more fun than Mormonism!
 
dafydd said:
Perhaps that passes for wisdom in the Mormon Church.
Click to expand...

Apologists prayer:

Oh lord grant me the wisdom to answer the questions I can and the sophistry to evade the ones I can't.
 
Pup said:
All the same arguments against religious "knowledge" apply. There's no difference between someone who is sincere, certain and believes slavery is right, and someone who is sincere, certain and believes slavery is wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you have been in any of my morality threads (if not count yourself lucky. BTW, I'm getting ready to start another one if your interested).

Anyway, I would have to exclude moral truth (or if you prefer, "reasoned behavior") from my epistemic claim for a number of reasons. However, granting you the premise I find it useful of sorts and otherwise agree with you.

That said, I think it important that we stick to existential epistemology for the sake of my point. You know, the old 101 question of whether or not tables and chairs exist and how can we know that if they exist? Questions of how we ought to behave, IMO, raise other unhelpful questions and call into question assumptions that must be addressed before we can even address the truth statement of correct behavior.

FWIW: I don't really have a strong inclination when it comes to objective moral truth. I tend toward ethical nihilism and I'm a bit wary of the idea but I don't reject it all together either.

Let's focus on what we perceive as facts about what exists and what doesn't. If today I were out walking and I saw a living triceratops I would be willing to trust my senses and believe that I had actually witnessed something extraordinary. Especially if I were not suffering any mental pathology and being a skeptic I'm not prone to flights of fancy I'd accept it as a real event. If however after a few days it became clear that no one else had seen the dinosaur and that there was no evidence for it beyond what I had seen I would come to question my own experience, rightly so.

We have many instances where people thought something extraordinary or supernatural occurred when in fact those who thought so were demonstrated to be wrong. At the end of the day a natural non-extraordinary explanation is more likely than an extraordinary or supernatural explanations (no supernatural cause has ever been demonstrated).

If you run the Bayesian statistics you will find the odds of a supernatural event to be zero. A living dinosaur, no matter how unlikely, is still more likely than a supernatural event. If I couldn't reasonably trust my senses for an extraordinary event that did not call for supernatural explanations then why should I trust my senses for a supernatural one?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Anyway, I would have to exclude moral truth (or if you prefer, "reasoned behavior") from my epistemic claim for a number of reasons. However, granting you the premise I find it useful of sorts and otherwise agree with you.

That said, I think it important that we stick to existential epistemology for the sake of my point. You know, the old 101 question of whether or not tables and chairs exist and how can we know that if they exist? Questions of how we ought to behave, IMO, raise other unhelpful questions and call into question assumptions that must be addressed before we can even address the truth statement of correct behavior.
Click to expand...

Ironically though, a lot of religious people don't make that distinction. They argue that one can't simply "just know" moral truth without evidence, and instead one must "just know" something else, which then leads logically to moral truth.

It's the old claim that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God's word, but if only they'd believe in God's word (without evidence), then God's word would be evidence of moral truth.

So I think the psychological condition of "just knowing" may be similar, whether it's applied to things, like god or barley in the Americas, or to moral truths.
 
Pup said:
Ironically though, a lot of religious people don't make that distinction. They argue that one can't simply "just know" moral truth without evidence, and instead one must "just know" something else, which then leads logically to moral truth.

It's the old claim that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God's word, but if only they'd believe in God's word (without evidence), then God's word would be evidence of moral truth.

So I think the psychological condition of "just knowing" may be similar, whether it's applied to things, like god or barley in the Americas, or to moral truths.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But at the very least I think that my position should rigorously adhere to what is otherwise uncontroversial when it comes to what is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom