Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

It doesn't really go both ways... because lack of evidence or being unable to disprove a claim goes for all religions... those who speak in tongues, Scientologists.... you have just made so very many huge assumptions that have no evidence in support of them at all except that we can't disprove it. But I'm not sure any religious claim can be disproven no matter how spurious. Can you prove the hijackers aren't enjoying virgins in heaven? I could point out that we have no evidence that any kind of consciousness survives death-- since you need a brain (and presumably other organs to think and feel and interpret and remember and experience orgasmic ecstasy). But you've already accepted all that without evidence. So you just dismiss the Muslim claim because your equally unsupported belief feels more true to you.

It's not like all probabilities are equal. God vs. no god are not even equal propositions... they are on par with "engrams" vs. no engrams or "ghosts" vs. "no ghosts". Or aliens visiting earth or not. Snakes talked or they didn't. Unicorns existed or they didn't. 2 options does NOT mean both are equally likely. To consider your bizarre claims seriously with so little evidence means that all equal claims should be considered similarly including Muslim truth and the truth of those speaking in tongues and Scientology.

You've just swallowed such a huge ball of "truthiness" and there is nary a supporting fact in sight from my perspective. It just seems .... crazy. Considering the extremely plausibility of the alternate scenario-- Mormonism is what Scientology is... and North Korea ideology is.... and astrology is... and Hare Krishna is... and Greek Myths are...

--Humans trying to make sense of their world and control it and others via storytelling.
 
Can't you see how your arguments would be the equivalent of someone telling us they talked in tongues and quoting bible passages and telling us that because we couldn't disprove that it was the holy spirit we ought to consider that it was? It's the same isn't it? Wild claims based on so much speculation and supported by wishes and feelings and the fact that it can't be completely disproven (as though you would stop believing if it could.) The faithful never look at the null hypothesis... in science we learn about the truth by trying to disprove our theories-- by testing and probing them again and again-- not by propping them up with faith and gaps and murkiness and feelings and stuff we want to be true or that people told us was true!
 
Last edited:
articulett - "there is nary a supporting fact in sight from my perspective." I think that's because you're not looking for any. There is objective evidence if you actually want to go find it. I even gave you a link. I've already mentioned word-printing, there's chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, there is evidence in the Pear of Great Price (That's the Book of Abraham that we're talking about), etc., etc. It's not proof, but it's evidence. But in order to not derail this thread, I'll try to stick to the debate thread topics. If you have questions, PM me.
 
rcronk said:
articulett - "there is nary a supporting fact in sight from my perspective." I think that's because you're not looking for any. There is objective evidence if you actually want to go find it. I even gave you a link. I've already mentioned word-printing, there's chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, there is evidence in the Pear of Great Price (That's the Book of Abraham that we're talking about), etc., etc. It's not proof, but it's evidence. But in order to not derail this thread, I'll try to stick to the debate thread topics. If you have questions, PM me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but certainly you can see that those who Speak in Tongues or who believe in Scientology can come up with similar evidence. It's confirmation bias type evidence. It's backwards. You have the truth you want and are filling in the facts that fit it... like all religions do. If a person was going to be objective and find out which, if any religion, were true... they certainly wouldn't approach it like you have. I know you must know this on some level. The North Koreans believe all sorts of stuff--all their books say so and I'm sure they have all sorts of anecdotes about, "if it wasn't true, how could you explain x, y, z...") How are we supposed to know you aren't doing the same? You've just assumed so much based on nothing--not just an invisible god with cryptic intent--but prophets and gold plates that defy physics and Lamanites and souls and feelings being ways of knowing "truth". Don't all people tend to believe the stuff they are told is true by the people they trust-- no matter what it is? Especially if it "feels" true or incites emotions like wonder or fear? When it comes to invisible immeasurable entities or forces or even basic history-- there is just so much ERROR and misinformation. And yet somehow, you seem to feel immune from such error even as you recognize it in all other belief systems.

Heck, people think that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and Betsy Ross sewed a flag even though there is no actual historical evidence for either... both came out of fictional tales on the subject and are spread as a sort of gospel. People have been very certain about things they are wrong aout-- because they've heard the stories from people they trust. How are you different? Why do you think your stories are more trustworthy than the Betsy Ross and the flag story. Sure, I can't disprove it. But I can show where the notion likely came from by tracing back the first mention of it. You do know that the first mention of the supposed events in the bible came long after the fact... like the Betsy Ross story... as does most everything in the BoM. Revelations, handed down stories, myths, and tales of golden plates just aren't historically accurate forms of information-- as you must know because you don't believe the Quo'ran--neither are nebulous "signs", because you're not trying to speak in tongues or prove Scientology by working the program.

How is it that you cannot see that everything you use to tell us your story is true and everything you use to explain that other stories are false-- is on par with the evidence others would use to say their woo is true-- and Mormonism is a cult-- or false-- or silly-- or the workings of satan? Why would you think that your justifications and "inner knowingness" and apologetics would be something a skeptical person would think useful for finding out the truth? To me it just illustrates this odd way the confident have of spinning their own personal truth that is impenetrable to contrary evidence.
 
Last edited:
Did you look up the things I mentioned? Have you heard of them before? They are not the type of evidence you explained. They are from books you can hold in your hand. You can investigate this objective evidence yourself. Like I said, to not derail the thread, if you honestly want to look into this evidence, PM me. Thanks.
 
rcronk said:
Did you look up the things I mentioned? Have you heard of them before? They are not the type of evidence you explained. They are from books you can hold in your hand. You can investigate this objective evidence yourself. Like I said, to not derail the thread, if you honestly want to look into this evidence, PM me. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You keep missing the point-- the evidence you suggest has so many presumptions behind it that it's worthless... You take some tiny bit of evidence for something "not amazing" to prove (to yourself) this whole giant ball of wax that includes gods and gold plates and Egyption hieroglyphs and prophets and seeing stones and satan tricking people by getting them to talk in tongues and messages that god "revealed" to you, personally.

But carry on... I guess you can't get the point since faith has become more important than truth in your world. I just thought you might want to be a little more aware of where a skeptic is coming from. We hear what you are saying and evaluate it similarly to the way you'd tell yourself that other religions are wrong (except we don't imagine it's a digression of Satan as you might). We just note that people can be very confident and very wrong. You notice this too--except that you think it can't apply to you for some reason.
 
And I don't think smith is a false prophet because of the fragments... I think he's a false prophet because the world is full of false prophets and there is no evidence of any real ones... there is no evidence of an invisible entity talking to mortals through magical means and revealing "special truths". I don't find compelling reason to believe in any form of consciousness absent a living brain-- and I would need to start with evidence that such things could exist before making the giagantic leaps to a "god" and then the Christian God (complete with original sin and killing his kid who is really him) and then The Mormon God (with Joseph Smith, Lamanites, and gold plates)-- there are just soooo many wacky claims that start with the first presumption and only get more wild as you go. What I'm interested in is why you don't seem to see this.
 
rcronk said:
Did you look up the evidence you just dismissed before you dismissed it?
Click to expand...

From the fairlds link? I've already read prior evidence from there. It's not exactly an objective source... it's a Mormon apologist site. All religions have such sites. It's really not about clarifying understanding... it's more about mucking things ups so the BoM can't be disproven. You know that all religions have these sorts of sites don't you? I read your Berkeley link and then the apologist interpretation and your assessment that because there wasn't a "single author" (i.e. it was plagiarized from multiple sources) -- Joseph Smith MUST be a prophet of god. And because Indians could have had any conclusive Middle Eastern DNA bred out of them, The Book of Mormon could still be historically true.

To me, you're asking me to do a rain dance, so that you can prove that you have the dance that proves that you know how to please the rain gods. I don't believe in rain gods. Even if I wasted my time learning the dance and then it rained, I still wouldn't believe in rain gods or that you knew the magical dance. Nor would I believe that anything I did affected the weather. Lots of giant leaps, see? Do you just not understand this analogy?
 
Your evidence comes from apologist sites... they are designed to promote the faith of the indoctrinated... they are really poor sources for a skeptic or an objective person trying to find out if there is anything useful or true about your church. They twist facts to fit the truth of the BoM. Scientists and skeptics go to facts that are the same for everybody to learn the truth and they don't let faith decide what those facts mean. You are doing exactly what the truthers you disagree with are doing. They can send you to all sorts of sites, I'm sure. That doesn't add weight to their claims. Neither do your sources, I'm sorry to say. Your sources are designed to make Mormons feel that they really do have an inner knowingness of divine truths and historical facts. But not anybody else.

And are you reading randfan's sources or anybody else's-- or are you just going to the apologetics to explain the discrepancies and inconsistencies?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I gave you a link to fairlds because it refuted a claim that was false. You can look up the other things I listed anywhere on the internet, if you want to see some objective evidence that you keep demanding. It's your choice.
 
P.S. Yes, I am reading RandFan's and other's sources - that's why I set up this debate in the first place. Yes, I get the raindance analogy. What I don't get is when you beg for objective evidence and I mention some that you could go look up and you ignore it and repeat the raindance analogy. Go look it up and see what's there. If you actually start looking for evidence, you might find some instead of claiming none exists while not even looking at it when it's handed to you.
 
Um... you claimed the Berkeley thing was objective evidence-- it was... but not for Joseph Smith being a prophet. Even when you give "objective evidence" it doesn't seem to support the giant leap you extrapolate from it. I don't disagree with the little stuff... it's the giant leaps and conjecture that they are based on.

I don't do the rain dance, because I would need evidence of rain gods to even start the process of thinking it might be worthwhile to waste my time on it. You've already bought into the notion... and you are using your time to prove to yourself that what you believe is true--like the truthers. Or is there a big difference I am missing?

My goal is to understand how people can believe so strongly in things that are contrary to the evidence-- like the truthers... and to understand what the truth is as much as I can. Your goal is to convince yourself and others that you, personally, have "the truth" and that the "burning in your bosom" was direct knowledge from the Mormon version of God confirming the BoM to be "the third testament" of Jesus Christ. (To me, all of that is as much of a myth as the truther's myth... and just as impenetrable to logic it seems.)
 
Last edited:
The video was great randfan.

That's similarly to the genetics... just as Egyptologists don't take any of it seriously... no one in genetics would take any of the ancestry claims seriously. It's fascinating watching the people at the end. Wow. Ask god if it's real... read the book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true.
 
articulett - If you somehow found out through objective evidence that the Mormon church were the true church of God, would you join? If not, why not? ETA: Let's assume that through objective evidence that it is also proved that God exists - this is just a rhetorical situation. I want to understand you better, that's all.
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
articulett - If you somehow found out through objective evidence that the Mormon church were the true church of God, would you join? If not, why not? ETA: Let's assume that through objective evidence that it is also proved that God exists - this is just a rhetorical situation. I want to understand you better, that's all.
Click to expand...
I'm open to anything. You give me objectie evidence that Zeus is god and I'll worship Zeus.

What about you?
 
Yes, I would join the Mormon church if definitive objective proof came out. ;) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Yes, I would seek and follow truth wherever it takes me. It would be difficult to work through what I have already found out that conflicted with Zeus being God, but I would work through it and I would expect there to be reasonable explanations for the conflicting evidence.

I do want to hear from articulett on this. I really do want to understand everyone here better. I have learned a lot while here and I am starting to see what you all are talking about and I can see a little more clearly from your point of view - I couldn't before, and I think I still have more to understand.
 
I would just like to commend rcronk and Randfan for being polite to each other during this debate. I think you two are a great example of a proper way to debate a topic and how to treat the opposing person with respect and fairness.

Thanks.
 
Thanks! I have learned a lot so far about objective vs. subjective evidence, self-deception, and many other things and I owe it to RandFan and others who have had patience while I figure these things out. Thanks all. I expect there is much more to learn and I look forward to it.
 
P.S. I've also learned about bias and how that affects a person's findings. Positive bias can lead one to be sloppy and too trusting. Negative bias is good in increasing rigour and not assuming anything is true until proven. I think letting both biases converse helps balance each other out. Perhaps an agnostic view is the correct view to have instead. It would seem an agnostic would be less likely to assume true or false and be misled one way or the other. I've seen people be led the wrong way in positive bias by blind faith and I've seen people led the wrong way in negative bias by hate and fear. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom