LDS

[pakeha]

Probably a reference to Antony Flew.

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

Today's his birthday.

 

[Agatha]

Meanwhile, I'm unable to understand why you lack the courtesy to avoid mocking my faith.

This is the JREFF, not www.myreligionisabovereproach.com. No beliefs, however sincerely held, are above mockery or criticism. Not religious belief, not political belief, not even tastes in food. It may not be particularly palatable for those with a belief in religions to have that belief mocked or criticised, just as it's not particularly palatable for those with no belief to have that lack of belief mocked or criticised.

But as long as the criticism or mockery is done on a factual basis, avoiding logical fallacies, it's designed ultimately to encourage everyone to critically examine their core beliefs, no matter how dearly they are held. That critical examination is a necessary part of adult thinking. If you personally don't feel able to do that, I respectfully suggest that you've come to the wrong website.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because that is what they, themselves, say after jettisoning God.

Which gods have atheists jettisoned?

Which gods have you jettisoned?

 

[Pup]

PuThe LDS is surprisingly similar to any of the more imaginative 419 scams I've dealt with and that's why I underline this point.
(snip)
Now, Pup, put some distance from the agendas of other 19th century religions.
Their agendas don't apply to our discussion whatsoever.
Remember?

If a 419 scam applies, so does a religious one. They both operate similarly. They either both apply, or they both don't apply. I see no reason why I should ignore one category simply because you tell me to.

Somebody had to sit down and imagine the supernatural stories in the Bible and pass them off as true history, just as Joseph Smith did for the Book of Mormon, and just as Nigerian scammers need to do with stories about million dollar inheritances.

The fact that the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Nigerian emails were written centuries apart doesn't change anything, because people still use them all for the same purposes today--as a way to get power, prestige and/or money by offering an enticing but imaginary reward.

I'm honestly surprised you don't acknowledge the vileness of Smith's scam- the level of deceit and dishonesty the man exhibited with that 'translation' of the papyrii should scream out to any academic.

Huh? I've acknowledged it over and over. I explained why the hoax was so poor that it never fooled any academics, so the damage it did there was nil, just as the damage that Nigerian scammers do to economists' calculations of inherited wealth is nil. The academic damage the Bible did is actually greater--schools in the U.S. still need to fight off creationists--but as far as the basic themes of gullibility, greed, power, manipulation, they're all similar.

What puzzles me is that you're okay with comparisons to other scams, but not to Bible-based ones.

If you think my posts are off topic, just hit the alert button. We clearly can't reconcile on this point.

You're correct; my error. Data on the lifespans of atheists and theists appear to be less than clear (culture is a critical factor). Data re. the suicide rate of atheists vs. theists is, however, perfectly clear: "Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide that subjects who endorsed religious affiliation. . . Subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. [Atheists] had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder." (www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html)

It seems to me that the flaw in such studies is that they lump people who are conflicted about their religious thoughts (and therefore aren't attending church or claim no affiliation) with those who are contented about their religious thoughts--even if they're atheists.

My hypothesis would be that people who are comfortable with their outlook on religion would test similarly, whether they're atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Yet the study didn't divide people that way, and instead only separated those who "reported belonging to one specific religion" compared to those who "described themselves as having no religious affiliation."

Has anyone seen a study where respondents are asked how contented or conflicted they are with their religious position, and divided accordingly?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ah, but by virtue of your relentless defense of atheism, you are a role model for aspiring young atheists; thus you are true to your calling; you walk the talk. In fact, immediately below, you announce that you "speak for all atheists."

You do? Is that an elective office? Taken a scientifically constructed survey, have you? What was the sample size? Did you randomize the participants geographically? When may I expect to see a peer-reviewed journal article?

Are you completely out of touch with your faithless colleagues? Apparently so. Because that is what they, themselves, say after jettisoning God.
Isn't there a local atheist group you can join that would enable you to get up to speed?

To be perfectly honest, the above melodramatic diversion is exactly what I would expect from someone who fails to defend his claim that faith is a component of the scientific method and then refuses to admit the error, or posts an article that he hasn't even read. You have played the victim, and now you are personalizing the argument out of transparent frustration. Perhaps you would be happier on a forum where everyone already agrees with you and your beliefs will not face challenging questions?

 

[Foster Zygote]

One momentary response before remembering the topic of the thread.

Speaking of that topic: How do you define a "negro"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Somebody had to sit down and imagine the supernatural stories in the Bible and pass them off as true history, just as Joseph Smith did for the Book of Mormon, and just as Nigerian scammers need to do with stories about million dollar inheritances.

That doesn't sound quite right.

Nobody just sat down and wrote the Bible the way Smith did with his fairytale(s).

I wouldn't grant that many of the stories in the Bible were originally written with wilful deception in mind either, as was the case with Smith.

 

[zooterkin]

In the UK, one can swear or affirm, but in neither case is a Bible (or other holy book) a necessary part of the ritual.

[derail]
We can thank Charles Bradlaugh for the ability to affirm rather than swear an oath. There is still an issue today, even in the UK, that it should not be relevant to a case whether a witness is swearing an oath or affirming, yet it is apparent to those in court which they are doing. A member of the jury might find it significant that a witness either is or is not religious; there is a move to remove the oath completely, and only have affirmations.

[/derail]

 

[zooterkin]

In the UK, one can swear or affirm, but in neither case is a Bible (or other holy book) a necessary part of the ritual.

[nitpick]
If you are Christian or Jewish, and swear an oath, rather than affirm, then a holy book is a necessary part of the ritual.

Any oath may be administered and taken in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in the following form and manner:—
(1) The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or, in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words “I swear by Almighty God that . . . . . .”, followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.
...

(3)In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner.

[/nitpick]

If you are an atheist, then you do have the choice of an oath or an affirmation, sans holy book in both cases.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you are an atheist, then you do have the choice of an oath or an affirmation, sans holy book in both cases.

Not on Darwin, Dawkins or Hitchens?

 

[Pup]

That doesn't sound quite right.

Nobody just sat down and wrote the Bible the way Smith did with his fairytale(s).

I wouldn't grant that many of the stories in the Bible were originally written with wilful deception in mind either, as was the case with Smith.

Do you have evidence for the last phrase? (edited to add: this was discussed earlier in the thread of course, and what surprises me is there are almost no examples of people who ever reported Smith being "out of character" as a prophet. Yet I'd expect there would be many, as explained in that post, if he was living a dual life of a fake prophet and his actual cynical self. For example I asked for examples here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8912527&postcount=1977 )

I don't think it's quite that simple. People are complex. Smith built up slowly to the Book of Mormon. At the beginning, when he was just telling stories about ancient America around the kitchen table, it netted him nothing but a little attention from his family.

For example, I don't think that every person who comes here wanting to win the million dollar challenge is deliberately lying in hopes of scamming Randi out of some money. Some are. Others are mentally ill. Others suffer mild delusions and are conflicted over what's happening in their heads but not ready to give up the belief that they're special.

And then you have the conspiracy theorists. If a holocaust denier or a birther writes a book for money, while another posts the same thing for free, both with the same fervor, are both or neither scammers or victims? It's not easy to say.

My opinion differs from many here, in that I don't see a sharp distinction between skeptical clear-thinking Smith and his gullible religious followers.

For one thing, it requires drawing a line between the cynical scammers and their marks. Which were Smith's relatives? Early converts? The prophet of the church today? The higher-ups? The rank-and-file members?

I think it's a bell curve. People can fool themselves, and those are the most dangerous because they're the most committed. Pure scammers will more easily walk away when the money or power dries up.

We can't read Smith's mind while he was describing the history of the lost tribes, or the Biblical writers/storytellers' minds as they were describing the history of how Jesus walked on water or raised the dead. Surely on some level their realized the implausibility of it all. But we can see how both religions and scams follow similar paths.

They need to offer the promise of a reward. They need to have ready excuses for the most obvious objections. They need to gradually lead their victims deeper (milk before meat) to get them committed. The victims often defend the scammers or don't want to admit they were fooled, making it hard to break up the game.

A Nigerian scam is fairly simple. Nobody but the victim believes the money exists--and on some level, even the victim may think it's too good to be true but still hope. Supernatural beliefs use the same techniques but are more complex, with more levels of both tangible and intangible rewards.

I think it's a mistake to oversimplify religious/paranormal/conspiracy gurus as just cynical scammers who disbelieve their own nonsense, even though it's useful to see how their memes spread the same way as more simple scams.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What kind of occupation was a treasure hunter for his time? It seems to be something that would suit a workshy opportunist with get-rich-quick dreams.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not on Darwin, Dawkins or Hitchens?

...the űberkorps get to use Sagan...

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you have evidence for the last phrase?

I'd suggest that the bogus Book of Abraham is evidence enough of shenanigans.

49 verses consisting of 2,000 words derived from a fanciful 'translation' of less than four lines of a fragment of papyrus?

He had to know that he was making it up out of whole cloth.

 

[Pup]

I'd suggest that the bogus Book of Abraham is evidence enough of shenanigans.

49 verses consisting of 2,000 words derived from a fanciful 'translation' of less than four lines of a fragment of papyrus?

He had to know that he was making it up out of whole cloth.

The Book of Abraham has one major difference between his other translations. He was pressured into it by others, rather than initiating it himself. Once it became clear he couldn't get out of it, he tried his best to go ahead. He was lucky, until heiroglyphics could be translated for real.

The Book of Abraham and the lost 116 pages are both good examples of how Smith was obviously aware of the limitations of his "powers," and hesitated to have them tested.

The Book of Abraham, though, reminds me of the million dollar contestants who come here thinking they can win, then reduce their claim considerably as they realize the rigorousness of the test, but reluctantly agree, forge ahead with the test, and then act puzzled, hurt and surprised when they fail. They may be momentarily shaken, but soon they maintain they still have powers, with excuses.

The pattern is common. I don't think it's a litmus test that they're scammers. Some are, sure. It certainly shows they disbelieve their powers on some level, as they revise down their initial claims.

But I think some who still insist they really can douse or read minds or whatever, even after failing, aren't just lying. They really on some level do think, or want to think, they can do it, even as they also are aware deep down they can't. It's not necessarily a sign of a 100% skeptical scammer, even though it can be.

 

[tsig]

The Book of Abraham has one major difference between his other translations. He was pressured into it by others, rather than initiating it himself. Once it became clear he couldn't get out of it, he tried his best to go ahead. He was lucky, until heiroglyphics could be translated for real.

The Book of Abraham and the lost 116 pages are both good examples of how Smith was obviously aware of the limitations of his "powers," and hesitated to have them tested.

The Book of Abraham, though, reminds me of the million dollar contestants who come here thinking they can win, then reduce their claim considerably as they realize the rigorousness of the test, but reluctantly agree, forge ahead with the test, and then act puzzled, hurt and surprised when they fail. They may be momentarily shaken, but soon they maintain they still have powers, with excuses.

The pattern is common. I don't think it's a litmus test that they're scammers. Some are, sure. It certainly shows they disbelieve their powers on some level, as they revise down their initial claims.

But I think some who still insist they really can douse or read minds or whatever, even after failing, aren't just lying. They really on some level do think, or want to think, they can do it, even as they also are aware deep down they can't. It's not necessarily a sign of a 100% skeptical scammer, even though it can be.

That's why he bought the scrolls no doubt:

After examining the scrolls, Smith, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews purchased the four mummies and at least five papyrus documents for $2,400.[5] Smith stated:

... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.[4]

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

No evidence of pressure there. Are you using some private Mormon apologetic source?

 

[carlitos]

skyrider44, your colons are back. Why do you insert them into quotes?

Only the Shadow knows.

This non-response is typical of the religious folks who post here. Any idea why? Someone was talking about "courtesy" up the thread.

 

[tsig]

This non-response is typical of the religious folks who post here. Any idea why? Someone was talking about "courtesy" up the thread.

It's a one way street, you respect their belief and they tell you you're going to hell.

 

[pakeha]

If a 419 scam applies, so does a religious one. They both operate similarly. They either both apply, or they both don't apply. I see no reason why I should ignore one category simply because you tell me to.

Once again, a strawman argument, Pup.
I asked you to keep in mind the agendas of 19th centuries religions did not apply to the objections the forum's discussion brings forth here.

Somebody had to sit down and imagine the supernatural stories in the Bible and pass them off as true history, just as Joseph Smith did for the Book of Mormon, and just as Nigerian scammers need to do with stories about million dollar inheritances.

You're veering off-course here, Pup
The Bible wasn't written by an individual.
Smith scammed with more than just the BOM.
419ers have gone way beyonf the inheritance scam, as I've mentioned before.

The fact that the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Nigerian emails were written centuries apart doesn't change anything, because people still use them all for the same purposes today--as a way to get power, prestige and/or money by offering an enticing but imaginary reward.

Then you do see the LDS is a scam?

Huh? I've acknowledged it over and over. I explained why the hoax was so poor that it never fooled any academics, so the damage it did there was nil, just as the damage that Nigerian scammers do to economists' calculations of inherited wealth is nil. The academic damage the Bible did is actually greater--schools in the U.S. still need to fight off creationists--but as far as the basic themes of gullibility, greed, power, manipulation, they're all similar.

Once again, a strawman argument, Pup.
"the damage that Nigerian scammers do to economists' calculations of inherited wealth is nil".
The inheritance scam is the simplest and least damaging of the 419 scams.
In any case, my point is that intellectual dishonesty is as damaging as any of the claims brought against the LDS, if not THE most damaging.
I must not be very successful in expressing that idea.

What puzzles me is that you're okay with comparisons to other scams, but not to Bible-based ones. ...

Wrong again, Pup.
I see you've missed a fair number of my posts in this forum.

If you think my posts are off topic, just hit the alert button. We clearly can't reconcile on this point. ...

On what point, Pup?
That Smith was a conman?

The Book of Abraham has one major difference between his other translations. He was pressured into it by others, rather than initiating it himself. Once it became clear he couldn't get out of it, he tried his best to go ahead. He was lucky, until heiroglyphics could be translated for real.

The Book of Abraham and the lost 116 pages are both good examples of how Smith was obviously aware of the limitations of his "powers," and hesitated to have them tested.

The Book of Abraham, though, reminds me of the million dollar contestants who come here thinking they can win, then reduce their claim considerably as they realize the rigorousness of the test, but reluctantly agree, forge ahead with the test, and then act puzzled, hurt and surprised when they fail. They may be momentarily shaken, but soon they maintain they still have powers, with excuses.

The pattern is common. I don't think it's a litmus test that they're scammers. Some are, sure. It certainly shows they disbelieve their powers on some level, as they revise down their initial claims.

But I think some who still insist they really can douse or read minds or whatever, even after failing, aren't just lying. They really on some level do think, or want to think, they can do it, even as they also are aware deep down they can't. It's not necessarily a sign of a 100% skeptical scammer, even though it can be.

That's why he bought the scrolls no doubt:

After examining the scrolls, Smith, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews purchased the four mummies and at least five papyrus documents for $2,400.[5] Smith stated:

... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.[4]

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

No evidence of pressure there. Are you using some private Mormon apologetic source?

Ouch.

 

[jsfisher]

... Thirteen chapters from Isaiah--that's a bit much, don't you think?

Already answered.

All Christian Scriptures in original form have the same source of inspiration.

A response, yes, but an answer? Not even close.

I don't imagine, Janadele, you would provide anything that isn't shallow or vapid at this point, so maybe skyrider44 or someone else might address the plagiarism issue.

It is very sad, actually. I've yet to see a rational argument that the Book of Abraham is not a complete fraud. And now, the Book of Mormon, the cornerstone of Mormonism, is proving to be a text of confiscation instead of divine inspiration.

There is less and less room for Joseph Smith to maneuver out from under the charge of once a con man, always a con man. Just as well the LDS Church membership is in decline.