Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[The_Animus]

was miserable after 6 years of that,

Why were you miserable for 6 years after becoming an atheist? I'm almost positive I know how your story about this will go, but I'd rather not make an assumption, so would you please give more detail?

If you intend on reading material about Mormonism from a Mormon it WILL BE biased. If however, you take someone who is nor Mormon, who knows nothing about it at all, then learns all about it and writes a book detailing what they found, that is not biased. So you simply have to find a book about Mormonism written by an author who knew nothing about Mormonism before he started researching it. And honestly rcronk, I think that most people who have an unbiased opinion would find Mormonism to be false and rejected for a number of reasons.

As for the subject that the rest of this entire thread has tried to make you understand I'm going to give it a few last words and then drop it.

You tell us that you understand that throughout history millions upon millions of people have believed they KNOW something and it turns out that they were wrong. That they did not know, and only thought they did. Now I am not saying that because people have been wrong in the past that you MUST be. I am not saying that. No one here is. What we are trying to tell you is that you should not say you KNOW, but rather that you believe it to be true, and to admit that it is POSSIBLE, not that it is, but that it is possible you are wrong.


Now then I'm done this this line of thinking and I would like to move onto another way of looking at this and debating this. Perhaps others would like to join me as you can see that the current line of reasoning doesn't have an effect.

Rcronk - Would you agree that when learning about something and making a decision that it is wise and right to take into account ALL evidence and not just look at some of the evidence and completely ignore other parts of the evidence?

For instance let's say that you needed a new kitchen chair and so you went to a garage sale. You see a chair there and now you have to decide if its worth buying. You inspect the chair and decide that you like the height of the seat, and the color of the chair would match your other chairs. At this point you choose to ignore anything else important about the chair and decide to buy it solely based on those two things you saw. As it turns out the price of the chair is $75 and you ignore the high price and buy it anyway. Upon getting it home you set it next to your kitchen table and sit down in your new chair... only to have it collapse on you. You get up and look at the legs of the chair to see that it had cracks in them and had partially molded. As a result of not taking into account all the evidence of whether the chair was a good buy you are now out $75 for a broken piece of crap chair.

So as this scenario suggests do you believe that it is wise and right to take into account all evidence and then weigh the pros against the cons before making a decision?

I will assume you do. As such I propose we go over all, or as much as we can think of, the evidence for and against a God existing. After as much evidence is given, we will then separate the evidence into two sides, one being the evidence that adds credibility to there being a God, and the other being evidence that adds credibility to there not being a God. I would appreciate other peoples help in this effort. Giving a clear explanation of simply things such as the problem of evil as well as various logical arguments for why a God doesn't exist would be great. Thanks.

 

[rcronk]

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss my 6 years of misery at this point. I think I understand everyone's point now. I feel like the main character of "Contact", who travels through space, meets her father, returns, and can't prove it and probably never will.

As for the change in thread direction, it sounds interesting. If someone wants to start another thread to do that, please do so, it wouldn't fit into the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to give people a place to discuss the companion debate thread. I think lately, we have been discussing the issue at hand on the debate thread. At this point, I think we can all wait for RandFan to bring up the next item of interest, if he's still willing to continue.

I would like to thank everyone here for your comments. I have learned a lot about myself, all of you, and life in general and I think I'm a better person for it.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss my 6 years of misery at this point. I think I understand everyone's point now. I feel like the main character of "Contact", who travels through space, meets her father, returns, and can't prove it and probably never will.

Excellent analogy.

And you'll note, in the movie she very, very strongly believes that her experience truly happened, but she does accept that it could have been a hallucination.

 

[Elind]

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to discuss my 6 years of misery at this point. I think I understand everyone's point now. I feel like the main character of "Contact", who travels through space, meets her father, returns, and can't prove it and probably never will.

That's a good analogy. I feel for you.

Damn, beaten to that line by a millisecond.

 

[rcronk]

Doesn't one of you owe the other a Coke or something at this point?

 

[rcronk]

...but she does accept that it could have been a hallucination.

That's fine. I know God lives. Please at least consider the possibility that I might actually know it.

 

[Elind]

Doesn't one of you owe the other a Coke or something at this point?

We are not Mormons, so I'll buy him a beer.

 

[rcronk]

Beer - fair enough.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I'll drink to that!


PS: rcronk, please check the old Religious Book Exchange thread. Thanks!

 

[articulett]

"balanced" meaning the whole truth, not enough of the truth to make Mormons sound evil or stupid, etc. Well, this thread is supposed to be for commenting on the debate thread, so I'd rather not derail it any more than it has already been. We could discuss it elsewhere if you really want to, but I'd rather leave Mormon apologetics to the ones who have time for it, like the ones at www.fairlds.org. If you want to, you could check out that site and the articles they've written. They are also open to questions if your criticisms aren't addressed in the articles already written.

I don't think Mormons are evil or stupid anymore than I think that of those who speak in tongues are or Scientologists or Moonies. I just think they are deluded and wrong... perhaps it's you who think the others are evil or stupid? I don't believe in "evil". I think Mormons are deluding themselves in the exact same way the people who speak in tongues are. I think all religions have taught their members how to "know" their religion is true and all the other ones are false. I think religions encourage people to claim to know (it's faith!) when they don't. I think doubt is essential to morality--not faith that you know something by feeling it's true!

Regarding the whole truth... no one said that Mormons are evil or stupid or that we can disprove the religion or that we can prove that there is no god or that faith isn't a way ever to get truth... Mormonism can have many glorious points... but that doesn't make it true. You keep missing the fact that it relies on a false premise--or at least an unproven one... and I think it's very similar to Scientology (work the program and you will see the results proving it's true) vs (read the book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true and the "holy spirit' will send a burning to your bosom.) I don't even see the difference in the speaking of tongues-- did you follow the links and the tearful testimony about how they were given the "gift" of speaking in tongues and knew that the holy spirit was speaking through them telling them pentacostalism was "the truth"? Speaking in tongues is a little more documentable than a "burning in the bosom"-- but it still doesn't mean that a holy spirit is letting you in on special secrets or even that there is a holy spirt or even that it's respectable to give credence to such beliefs.

There is a truth-- a reality that is the same for everybody. And, there is no evidence that anyone can feel it. That doesn't mean that one can't "feel" it, but why even lend credence to the notion that this is so when clearly this is a recipe for self delusion in at least some cases and never has proven to be a route to actual truth in any case?

That's the point you keep missing. Why would you or anyone think that because something "feels" true, it is? Doesn't the earth "feel" flat? All the apologetics and tangents seem to be keeping your from addressing this. Isn't it more rational to ask why one should think feelings lead to truth than to assume this is the case and then go running around trying to see what "feels" true?

I just don't see your religion is as the moral pillar that you do--even if it's not all bad. I just see no reason for thinking it's true... except that it makes you feel special and super duper and chosen and in on a secret from god. You seem to be used to some sort of respect for "faith"-- I don't think faith IS respectworthy. And I think your beliefs and opinions (which all your statements are as far as I can tell) are as useful to me as my beliefs and opinions are to you. You assumed you had "truth" that needed to be shared, but you never realized that we have knowledge that you could learn from or that you can be deceived just as other believers have been--and that's the cognitive dissonance of the faithful that I just never understood.

 

[rcronk]

tanstaafl - I checked out the other thread and replied about the murder of Joseph Smith here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2919551&postcount=144

articulett - I get it. It's not just a feeling, it's knowledge being given to me. You might claim that you have thoughts in your head but you cannot prove it to me even though you "know" they are there. I will never tell you that you don't have thoughts in your head even though you can't prove it to me. I won't even demand that you say that you "believe" you have thoughts instead of saying "know". Not being able to prove something to someone else has no bearing on its truthfulness. Please stop.

 

[Elind]

You confuse belief with truth inasmuch as we are talking of the real world, not what's inside our individual minds.

 

[rcronk]

No. It's true that you have thoughts in your head (or even that you experience feelings or that you like french toast) and that you know it for sure - you don't just believe it. That is just as much truth as things in the "real world". You cannot prove to me that you have thoughts, feelings, or that you like french toast, but that doesn't make it false nor does it compel me to demand that you use the word "believe" instead of "know". Truth exists independently of our ability to prove it.

 

[Elind]

The only such truth that I can conceive (assuming it's one you know and I don't, or v.v.) is one that is in someone's imagination.

However, I took another look at the other thread looking for something concrete to illustrate the point.

This comment by Randfan appears to have gone unanswered by you.

Then along came DNA. While the science behind DNA can be esoteric the concept itself is straight forward and due to the reliance of DNA in court and it's ever increasing mention in popular culture DNA was something that could easily corroborate earlier scientific understanding and more importantly stand on its own to definitively say that Native Americans and Polynesians are from Asia just as their phenotype and all other scientific data pointed to all along.

Since this is a major, if not THE major, tenet of Mormonism, how do you reconcile the outright rejection of the origins of peoples in the Americas as being in accordance with the story Joseph Smith told? Of course he had no way of knowing that this type of knowledge might become available one day. I anticipate that the only way this can be addressed is the same way creationists say "god made it look that way, for inscrutable reasons".

What say you?

 

[rcronk]

I don't understand your response. If you like french toast and you know for certain that you like it, I'm OK with that. You can't prove it. I can't disprove it. But it's true nonetheless and you are correct to say that you "know" that you like french toast. Just like I can say that I know God exists.

I thought I did address the DNA thing - but maybe it was in another thread. I'm not a DNA expert, so I'll rely on the research of others: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence

 

[Elind]

I should have known better than to bring that up. The link sounds like it was written by the OJ defense team, or conceivably Behe when moonlighting.

The waffle is summarized by it's own words:

Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex.

 

[rcronk]

So if someone brings up something that goes against theism or Mormonism it's scientific, bulletproof, and should be trusted completely and if something comes up defending against such claims, it should be distrusted by default and dismissed based on three sentences, regardless of the rest of the content? I don't agree with that logic.

That's it! I'm now going to demand that you say that you "believe" you like french toast now instead of saying that you "know" it for sure!

 

[articulett]

tanstaafl - I checked out the other thread and replied about the murder of Joseph Smith here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2919551&postcount=144

articulett - I get it. It's not just a feeling, it's knowledge being given to me. You might claim that you have thoughts in your head but you cannot prove it to me even though you "know" they are there. I will never tell you that you don't have thoughts in your head even though you can't prove it to me. I won't even demand that you say that you "believe" you have thoughts instead of saying "know". Not being able to prove something to someone else has no bearing on its truthfulness. Please stop.

Yes, but not being able to prove it makes others wonder if you "know" what you think you know. And "knowledge given to me" is on par with "the holy spirit through me by speaking in tongues" in my book. The statements are equally likely to contain useful truths.

The people who "speak in tongues" have doctrinal authority that being able to do so is a proof of being saved--of the holy spirit speaking through them. We can see it and prove that what is going on in their heads per brain scans is different than when asked to "fake" speaking in tongues. So why aren't you trying to see if you can speak in tongues? You believe that there are invisible spirits that communicate to people in unprovable ways-- why do you reject this way? This is "proof" to them-- and it's more "proof" than your claims to know which, frankly, is on par with the hijackers claims to know what was waiting for them in the next life. Because we can see that they really believe what they say--there's evidence. But it sure isn't evidence of truth.

You subscribe to the notion that truth can be "felt"-- but you don't give credence to others who assert knowledge as confidently as you-- on this forum, check out maatorc and his claims of astral travel and ESP. He, too, has a method whereby you can supposedly prove this truth to yourself. Why aren't you interested in his truth? Do you think your claims of "knowingness" are less prone to error for a reason? Or is your reason, like your knowledge, subjective, not able to be examined. Why should one read the book of Mormon and follow it's methods to prove it's truth rather than try the rain dances that the most people swear will please the rain gods? Why not work the Scientology program and let it prove itself by the way your life begins flowing and working and you feel increasing spirituality and awareness? Why not see if the holy spirit will speak in tongues through you as the bible mentions? Why are Mormon apologetics better than young earth creationist apologetics or Jehovah Witness apologetics or Catholic apologetics or New Age mumbo jumbo apologetics? Why would the creator of the universe see to bless you with the right religion and inner knowingness while letting other just as sincere, trusting, and honest people be deceived? Why would any invisible entity communicate "truths" in a manner indistinguishable from a delusion? Why would a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, true anybody need apologetics? -- Mortals fighting his battles and spinning out their version of his truth...especially so many versions... so many men who claim to KNOW what this invisible overlord wants--(oddly enough, it tends to be things that benefit them!).

Even if I accepted that someone could just "know" something without evidence except a feeling or "subjective proof" or confirmation bias--then I still wouldn't have a means of determining your inner knowingness from maatorc's or Tom Cruises or the hijackers or those who speak in tongues. They are all just as convinced that they know some truth, aren't they? And yet their evidence is on par with yours. That's the thing I could never understand. It just seems so egotistical to think that your inner knowingness is "the truth" and others are "wrong" even though their stories and strength of belief and evidence is as good or better per an objective observer. And humans are known confabulators. Our brain lies to us. What is it about your ego that makes you so sure that you can't be fooled, and why wouldn't you examine that?... why doesn't every guy of every faith? All these people claiming to "know" higher truths is a bit cumbersome for those of us who see know evidence that there ARE higher truths. Please tell me how it is you manage to dismiss those other stories and not try to see if their feelings are true while accepting that it's impossible for you to be deceived. That just seems so.... arrogant. I know you don't like it... but don't you find other preachers claiming to know stuff that is conflicting with your "knowledge" arrogant? This is the whole reason skeptics need facts, not testimony--their own or anyone else's. I think that religion is responsible for this dangerous meme that you can know things by faith or feeling. Where's the evidence that this is the case? And why are so many people who are certain so wrong? You don't think the Heavens Gate crowd are on spaceships do you? Why not? And I bet their "knowingness" matches yours.

What did you imagine would happen when you started posting here? I have never gone to a Mormon forum to post or any "believer" forum.

 

[articulett]

No. It's true that you have thoughts in your head (or even that you experience feelings or that you like french toast) and that you know it for sure - you don't just believe it. That is just as much truth as things in the "real world". You cannot prove to me that you have thoughts, feelings, or that you like french toast, but that doesn't make it false nor does it compel me to demand that you use the word "believe" instead of "know". Truth exists independently of our ability to prove it.

Yes, but liking french toast is on par with an opinion or preference... that is not the same as a truth that would be the same for everyone such as the earth being spherical. While it's true for everyone that "some people like French Toast"-- that is the extent that truth goes. While it's true that some people think that they can know facts through faith and feelings--that is as far as that truth goes. Anything further is speculation.

Either there are invisible entities that speak to people in a manner indistinguishable from the known ways humans deceive themselves--or there isn't. Whatever the answer is, is the same for everybody irrespective of what they believe. Of course this still leaves the nature of these entities up in the air and who is receiving actual truthful evidence from them up in the air as well. It also invents a category of invisible entities going around deceiving people and making them feel like they know something. You've just allowed such muddy thinking to extrapolate your belief that your some invisible entity of a particular sort gave you "true" divine knowledge via a burning bosom and other unprovable techniques which is supposedly useful and valuable and worthy of convincing others to believe.

Interesting. It's very interesting what religion can get people to conclude.

 

[Elind]

So if someone brings up something that goes against theism or Mormonism it's scientific, bulletproof, and should be trusted completely and if something comes up defending against such claims, it should be distrusted by default and dismissed based on three sentences, regardless of the rest of the content? I don't agree with that logic.

That's it! I'm now going to demand that you say that you "believe" you like french toast now instead of saying that you "know" it for sure!

Look, they had a really simple story with a simple genealogical history. Along comes DNA, and now they have to complicate the story with all kinds of waffle about this or that origin and mixing and whatever, and then they throw in OJ type smoke just to make it all sound scientific.

DNA origins show that Smiths original story is a fantasy.

So now the prophets get the word that it wasn't quite that simple, as in: "hey, those people back then were pretty simple, not sophisticated like you guys, so I decided to give them the basic story. Wink wink, but you Mormons of the 21st century now know more. PS. Watch this space"