There's a persistent Mormon named Seth Rogers who is well known to atheists bloggers. Criticize the Mormon religion in an atheist blog, and Seth is right there to set you right. Three months ago I wrote a blog about the Mormon Church's immoral stance on homosexuality, and the debate is still going on.
After I wrote my final response in that thread, I realized it was blogworthy, not something that should be buried in a long tirade of Mormon apologetics, so here it is.
Mormon apologists make the classic mistake that's repeated over and over by religious apologists everywhere: they assert that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.
Mormonism makes a staggering number of amazing claims that defy both common sense and the historical and archaeological records. It is up to the Mormons to prove that there is a reasonable, plausible explanation for every one of them.
In science, no single experiment or observation proves anything. We accept theories like relativity and evolution not because of Einstein or Darwin, but because years and centuries of experiments and observations continue to support and confirm these theories.
Occasionally an experiment will seem to throw doubt on a well-established theory, but after more work these invariably help us refine and strengthen the theory.
Religious apologetics is just the opposite. The Book of Mormon is full of fantastic claims, each of which requires some sort of linguistic or historical twist. When we look at the facts, rather than a long series of wonderful discoveries that strengthen and confirm the Mormon claims, Mormon apologists have to twist and turn to slip around the facts.
Where science argues, "Look, this strengthens the theory," religion can only say, "Look, this doesn't refute the theory."
I can make any unfalsifiable claim I like, such as Russell's famous orbiting teapot, and my religion is just as good as yours.
Every single argument these Mormon apologists make falls into the "you can't prove I'm wrong" category. Every time we call them on it, they're forced to dive into linguistic smoke and mirrors. We don't have to prove Mormonism is wrong. Mormons have to prove they're right, because Mormons are the ones making the fantastic, magical claims.
Proving Mormonism wrong is uninteresting. If the Mormons find a way to prove they're right, come see us.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
128 comments:
Dear readers -- I am no longer blogging and after leaving these blogs open for two years have finally stopped accepting comments due to spammers. Thanks for your interest. If you'd like to write to me, click on the "Contact" link at the top. Thanks! -- CJ.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteYes, I couldn't agree more that the other post was becoming rather unpleasant, to say the least. I think what you have written here is said very well! People forget, but the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Actually, if you read my last comment there, I never said the burden of proof for proving God or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, or whether Muhammad saw and angel was on the atheist.
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware that atheists enjoy the advantage of a non-position.
It is when they leave that basic "I don't believe in God position" and go on to make positive truth claims like "Mormons are brainwashed" or "religious people are stupid" that they give up all rights to the non-position label. Now they DO have a burden of proof.
And in my experience, Internet atheism is rarely content to limit itself to arguing simply "God has not been proven to me - therefore I don't believe in him."
Rarely are they content to leave it there however. And that's often where they shoot themselves in the foot.
Flat wrong, Seth. You're comparing assertions of fact (The Book of Mormon) to personal opinions ("you're brainwashed"). That's apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteIt's not necessary to prove my opinions. They're opinions.
But when you make incredible magical claims about the history of America, people naturally expect solid research to back it up. Mormonism utterly fails this test.
Yes Craig, but you have conveniently left out here that what I was debating on the other thread was not whether Mormonism is true, but rather whether it is obviously ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThey are two completely separate arguments. Anyone here can go re-read my argument with Steve and see for themselves that I was NOT trying to prove Mormon claims, but merely defend us from accusations of brainwashing from a rather condescending atheist who was obviously expecting a lot of sycophantic applause from the echo chamber.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYou're a very spirited guy; I do like that, but I wish you were able to stay on track. When I read what you wrote here, I was thinking, “What? You’re kidding me, this is an apples and oranges comparison,” and then I saw that Craig had beat me to it. Seth, your problem is that seemingly you have a very short memory; indeed, you were trying to prove the claims of Mormonism! Need I remind you? You noted things such as: language, genetics, metallurgy, etc. The problem, Seth, is that – based up on your picture – you appear to be young, and, in my opinion, this makes you a bit green and more than a little foolish. Let everyone note the following, I quote you:
“What is it about the Book of Mormon that has been clearly refuted then?
Are you talking about the horse thing, the wheel thing, the barley thing, the steel thing? What?
On the Mormon side we have more than addressed ALL of these attacks.”
You wonder why I cal you disingenuous? Seth, you have a lot of passion, but you have allowed this passion to cloud your reasoning. I have to say it like it is; the Mormon religion is from a rational and evidentiary standpoint, quite frankly, indefensible. AS I keep saying, the viral religion is uniquely American; aside from the Middle East, one just doesn’t typically see this level of religiosity. It is a shame Seth, because you seem a fairly bright guy – you’re just trying to illuminate the wrong areas…
I only brought those popular topics up Steve because you were claiming to have "obvious" and "irrefutable" proof that Mormons were brainwashed idiots.
ReplyDeleteSo I was basically saying: "OK, let's go through most of the popular arguments and see if any of them provide undeniable proof that Mormons are ridiculous."
Basically, since you've got egg on your face on your rather arrogant claim of Mormons being stupid Steve, Craig is now trying to cover for your screw-up by shifting the debate back to where atheists are strongest - when they aren't making any claims at all.
But anyone who reads the conversation carefully can see I never once offered to prove Mormonism to anyone here.
And I have to note that neither you nor Craig has yet retracted the claim that Mormons are obviously stupid and deluded. So I am forced to conclude that both of you are still standing behind it. Correct?
And apparently you need to work on you English comprehension Steve. Take a close look at that quote you pasted from me.
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say in there that Mormons have proven the Book of Mormon true?
I said we addressed the attacks.
I never said we proved our side.
Go back and read it. I'll wait for you.
Hi, my name is Seth and I will never, ever concede a point; God is on my side. Give it a rest Seth, you've been proven wrong by your own words. Learn to concede a point. Part of the problem is that people fail to recognize what actually constitutes evidence. This is a perfect example, for Seth has been proven incontrovertibly wrong, yet he continues to argue. Oh boy, and you wonder why we think you're a dolt...
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteMy God you are chilled-like, are you freaking kidding me? Here is what you wrote:
“… that I was NOT trying to prove Mormon claims, but merely defend us from accusations of brainwashing from a rather condescending atheist who was obviously expecting a lot of sycophantic applause from the echo chamber.”
Here is what you wrote prior to that; you have an innate inability to be honest. This is why I don’t like religious people, because they lie. Let me reprint it, Seth. Here is what you wrote prior to that:
What is it about the Book of Mormon that has been clearly refuted then?
Are you talking about the horse thing, the wheel thing, the barley thing, the steel thing? What?
On the Mormon side we have more than addressed ALL of these attacks.
Once again, you are playing word games. I feel that I am merely learning what Craig has already known. Seth, you can make every attempt to twist this conversation to suit your needs, but you are clearly and obviously wrong. My reading comprehension is a-ok, I assure you. I see what you get up to; there are always slight shifts in the argumentation, and this sort of nonsense might work well with your feeble-minded followers, but it will not work here. Seth, you are trying to pretend that you are trying to prove the Mormon Church true by trying to pretend that you’re merely defending it. Hogwash, that’s a rather pointless and pedantic distinction. You call me arrogant? Goodness me, believing in and basing your entire life on unproven nonsense, is very arrogant. Do us a favor and please just go away.
P.S. Craig, have you figured out an inoculation for this Religion Virus? I think Seth has a severe case…
Oops, sorry, I meant to state, "child-like."
ReplyDeleteHi. My name is Steve, and I don't understand plain written English.
ReplyDeleteLet me spell it out for you.
ReplyDeleteFirst - the atheist makes a positive fact claim that the presence of the word steel in the Book of Mormon definitively proves the book to be an "obvious fraud."
Now, in order to refute this claim, does the Mormon need to prove the Book of Mormon true?
He does not. Because the atheist was not merely stating that the Book of Mormon was untrue. If that were all the atheist had said, the Mormon would indeed have to prove the book true.
But the atheist did not make a simple statement that the book was not true. He said it was OBVIOUSLY PROVEN to be untrue. And he used the word "steel" as proof-positive that the Book of Mormon has been utterly discredited.
Now the game has changed.
The Mormon no longer needs to prove the Book of Mormon true. All he has to do is show that the presence of the word "steel" does not obviously establish the book's untruth.
I met that burden Steve. And your only reaction has been to whine and flap your hands about how dishonest and deluded I am.
Again everyone. Let's sit back a bit and see if Steve is mentally capable of formulating a coherent argument without using the word "liar" or "deluded" in it.
Don't hold your breath though.
A purely pedantic and meaningless argument, Seth. In effect, your position is like arguing whether God has Red or blond hair; Seth, we haven't proven that God even exists. So, you not met any burden of proof whatsoever, for you have yet to demonstrate that there was a single piece of pre-colombian steel. An absurd argument!
ReplyDeleteMore hand-waving Steve.
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't shown any indication that you've understood a word I said.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI am not going to keep engaging in this pointless conversation. You are accusing me of the very thing you’re doing; not an altogether uncommon practice amongst religious extremists. Somehow you’re attempting to place the burden of proof on me, and you haven’t any basis for doing so. This is why I think religious people – you particularly – are complete nut-jobs. You have taken every rational basis for meaningful exchange and tossed it out the window, and please don’t even begin to tell me that I am the first person who’s told you that.
What I originally said about the Mormon Church stands: “From a scientific position, Mormonism is demonstrably false, and it is certainly “clickish” and, most importantly, its members speak with a unified tongue.” Indeed, I stand by this position, and all of your red-herrings, non-sequiturs and circular reasoning will not change this fact. Yes, how you’ve conducted yourself during this debate places your firmly into the “brainwashed” category. You set yourself up as some sort of disinterested third-party, and this makes you a liar. You are an active member of the Mormon Church and yet you pretend otherwise. You then go on to claim that you have met this or that burden of proof when clearly you have not. Here are the simple facts about your church:
1. Neither can you prove that the Book of Mormon to be ancient, nor can you prove it’s complex or written by anyone other than Joseph Smith. Granted, he was an illiterate felon who likely had help. Provide for me radiometric dating that proves the Book of Mormon is ancient – you can’t!
2. Your absurd notion that somehow when the word steel was used they mean something else; perhaps in the Bible, but not in the Book of Mormon. Let’s read the passage together:
“[15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.”
Yes, Seth, please tell me how your linguistic acrobats fit here. Smith names every manner of metal, yet when he used the word “steel” he was meaning “some hard thingy”. What a bunch of nonsense! Take the science completely out of it, and ask yourself; form a logical standpoint does this make sense? No, of course not; Seth is just making stuff up.
3. Then you make this demonstrably false point: “Then combine that with the fact that all animal matter - including bones usually decomposes without a trace.” Sorry, this is simply untrue; as such, this is what we call fossilized evidence, or sometimes we get lucky and find ancient species embedded within amber or peat bogs. Yes, Seth, you’re a liar – you purposefully obfuscate the truth.
Seth, you need to face some facts here. Other than your boisterous personality, you are entirely incapable of engaging in any sort of rational or scientific debate – you simply aren’t educated enough. Yes, I suppose that makes me somewhat arrogant, but I can live with that accusation. I think Craig has made some exceedingly excellent points; which, by the way, you’ve simply ignored. This one probably being one of the best: “Where science argues, "Look, this strengthens the theory," religion can only say, "Look, this doesn't refute the theory." In all honesty, your public demonstration of irrationality is what actually scares me about religious people. You feel it’s your duty to be a fool for God, and religious people have never shied away from being violent with those whom they disagree. In the end, I could make innumerable additional points, but it will be a waste of time, for you’ll merely dismiss it as my “hand-waving.” I suppose I’d be desperate too if I had placed all my life energy into the wrong endeavor. As I noted elsewhere, the Mormon Church is a fool’s paradise…
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteWhoah, I blogged quite a bit about Morgs and I don't think I heard from this guy Seth Rogers. Here's one post: http://sarahtrachtenberg.com/?p=249
Frankly, I'm insulted, but I can understand that having a bunch of wives would cut down on his time to comment on *every* blog. (Kidding)
Alls I know is that if I had an outlandish belief, I wouldn't resent that the burden of proof was on me. That's just how it goes. In all fairness, this isn't a charge specifically against Mormonism, by any means, so why is Seth Rogers's special Mormon underwear in a knot?
By all means Steve disengage. If you feel like you've put forth your best arguments, I guess we can't really expect much more from you.
ReplyDeleteYou paint with a broad brush, Craig, when you say things like "Every single argument these Mormon apologists make falls into the "you can't prove I'm wrong" category."
ReplyDeleteI happen to be a Mormon who, like plenty of other Mormons, treats the tenets of atheism and the scientific theory as closely aligned with Mormon principles of truth-seeking.
Mormonism does in fact teach its followers to "test things out." It gives a theory (i.e. if you do this, this will happen), then invites you to put it to the test. This not only applies to praying and receiving answers; it also applies to overcoming personal challenges, achieving greater happiness, and other practical matters.
Remember that the Mormon religion began because someone doubted the things that were being preached to him in the churches around him. He decided to find out for himself what the truth is.
Doubt can be a great motivator, because it invites you to be serious about finding the truth. I would never say to any atheist "prove that I'm wrong;" but I would invite an atheist to "try and find out if I'm right"--not by taking a cursory look at some of the things our church teaches and discounting them, but by putting the promises of our church to the test via the scientific method.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSara, I don't resent having the burden of proof for my beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't have the burden of proving they are not "outlandish." That burden rests on YOUR shoulders.
Seth, maybe nobody understands you because your logic is incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah ... don't feel bad, the mainstream Mormons probably ignored you because even they are embarrassed by the polygamists. Unfortunately, to a neutral outsider, the polygamists seem to be the ones following the original tenets of Mormonism. It's all so confusing...
ReplyDeleteHi Bob,
ReplyDeleteAlthough, technically speaking, you might be correct with regard to painting with a broad brush, but in this instance, this point is immaterial. Bob, I do not mean any disrespect, but this is exactly – verbatim – what my brother says, “test things out.” What does this mean? We have test many of Seth’s “things” and they have been proven to be nonsensical, so what are the next steps? What do we do when we test the veracity of claims being made in the Book of Mormon and they don’t hold up to scrutiny? What then? Do we stop being Mormon? What would it take?
Again, I am not picking on you, but this is exactly the same sort of claim – in one form or fashion – that every religion or guru makes:
“Mormonism does in fact teach its followers to "test things out." It gives a theory (i.e. if you do this, this will happen), then invites you to put it to the test. This not only applies to praying and receiving answers; it also applies to overcoming personal challenges, achieving greater happiness, and other practical matters.”
There’s a get-out clause here: “If you do this then this will happen.” The operative word here is “if,” and it goes something like this. If you have enough faith then you can move mountains. How much faith? Well, just enough to move mountains. Sorry, but this is not the stuff of science. It’s irrational! I am sorry, but this simply does not work. We have tested many claims made in the book of Mormon and they have not weathered the test, so I find this claim simply disingenuous. What :test” would it take for you to finally admit, “Hey, there’s nothing here”?
Sorry, one additional point. What, in fact, the "if" thing does is put the burden back onto the believer. In a way, it's cruel. Well, sorry son, you just didn't have enough faith, but the central claim remains unchallenged. It's rather ingenious, isn't it? But it's wrong. To first and most other religious claims are, quite simply, untestable, so this renders this entire proposition rather as unsound; in short, it's not compatible with science.
ReplyDeleteTangent alert:
ReplyDeleteI've never been particularly embarrassed about historical polygamy Craig.
Are you embarrassed about historical monogamy? Then why should I be embarrassed about historical polygamy?
End tangent.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteThe "if" thing is not the problem, I don't think. The scientific method always starts with if: "If you mix this chemical with this chemical, X event will happen."
Your other point is an accurate one, though. Faith is often a chemical that is required in spiritual experiments. If you try the experiment without that chemical, then of course you will not get the same result as believers claim to get. But the fact that an atheist might not have immediate access to the required chemical does not make the experiment invalid.
Regarding your question about how much faith is required though, the answer is "not very much." Here's what one BOM prophet said: "But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."
So with just a "particle" of faith, a "desire to believe," you have enough of the operative chemical to conduct the experiment.
You might say, in response, that any result from an experiment in which "belief" is an ingredient is faulty because the person conducting the experiment will see what he wants to see.
But in reality, the types of experiments I'm talking about have repeatable and objectively measurable results. If you have a "desire" to believe, and you conduct the experiment, and the experiment fails, then you can logically conclude that the belief was wrong or the experiment was faulty, etc. But if you have that particle of faith, and you conduct the experiment, and the result is as promised, you have "evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1).
I cannot apologize for the fact that faith is an essential ingredient in spiritual experiments. But I can say with confidence that promises in the Book of Mormon are testable if you have the right ingredients.
(By the way, when I talk about promises, I'm not talking about trying to prove the BOM with physical evidence; I'm talking about looking at the textual promises of the Book of Mormon that guarantee a certain result in your life if you take certain steps).
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteSorry, we're speaking entirely different languages here. The sort of experiment you're referring to is not the sort of experiment I am referring to. The experiment I had in mind was objective. There isn't any empirically testable way to confirm your "experiments." What you're talking about here is merely a "feeling," and that simply is insufficient for the stuff of science. Objectively speaking, I can say I feel a certain way, but this doesn't prove anything other than the fact that when I spoke my mouth was moving. I am beginning to think that some people are "wired" to be believers and others, quite simply, are not.
If I read your website correctly, then I believe it said you were a law student, yes? If so, then surely you must recognize that mere feelings and anecdotal evidence are inadmissible in court? I am not being mean here, I promise you, but I’d like to illuminate a few things you said. I quote:
“… Faith is often a chemical that is required in spiritual experiments. If you try the experiment without that chemical, then of course you will not get the same result as believers claim to get. But the fact that an atheist might not have immediate access to the required chemical does not make the experiment invalid.”
Quite honestly, this is why I state that most religious thinking is disingenuous. First of all, let’s use honest language here. To equate faith with a chemical leads more obtuse people to believe that there’s something testable, scientific or provable – at least in the empirical sense. Let’s be frank; faith is not a chemical nor is it even close, so this is a false analogy which renders the entire sentence invalid. Faith is a slippery substance which does not have a specific meaning or a quantifiable amount. So, in the sense that you’re using it, it would be impossible to conduct any sort of “experiment” other than a feeling. I have to disagree; the experiment is invalid because it isn’t an experiment. In effect, you’re suggesting exactly what I stated; which is, “Well, it didn’t work for you because you don’t have the right ingredients. As I noted, this places the burden back on to me, but your central claims (the BoM, as you put it) remains unchallenged.
Quite simply, it is high time that religious people start being honest about their beliefs. Religion isn’t science and to try to prove your religion through science actually undermines the concept of faith. As Craig noted, I’d much prefer that religious people say, “Yep, you’re right, it really doesn’t make sense but I believe it anyway; it makes me feel good.” At least that’s something I can sink my teeth into. So, to sum up, your entire post really amounts to a rather large quantity of anti-intellectualism. Let’s be honest, this isn’t an experiment; it’s not a “test,” but rather an attempt to couch religious beliefs in the parlance of scientific language.
Seth - It's not all about you. There are other participants in this conversation. Perhaps you didn't notice that my comment started with "Hi Sarah..." and your name wasn't even mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIt should be pointed out that empirically proving the existence of God would not matter much from a religious standpoint. Religion seeks for the individual to have a transcendent relationship with God. Not to merely acknowledge that God exists.
ReplyDeleteActually, merely admitting that God exists is something of little or no interest to the theist. Just because God exists does not mean that you will worship him for instance.
This is why Steve I don't particularly care one way or the other if you admit that God exists. Because it will make little to no practical difference in your life or mine anyway.
I'm sorry Craig. Did you want to insult Mormons without any input from actual Mormons?
ReplyDeleteIf the purpose of this blog is for unpleasant atheists to only hear opinions from people they already agree with, by all means let me know, and I'll take off and let you get back to your private group therapy session.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteEven though –as Craig noted – I wasn’t speaking to you I’ll nevertheless respond. What you wrote in your last post is probably the most honest thing you have written, but, sadly, it is tragically inane. You said, “Actually, merely admitting that God exists is something of little or no interest to the theist.” Indeed, then if you don’t know that God exists or care to prove he does, then how do you know you aren’t having a relationship with an imaginary friend? No, I wouldn’t worship him; even if it was proven he did exist. Why would I need to subordinate myself to him? Even worse, why would he or she want me to? What you propose and what you continue to propose is quite preposterous. Seth, I have to be honest; when I first read some of what you wrote I thought, “I don’t agree with him but he does have some spirit and some wit.” However, I see through it all now; your ability to reason is tragically hindered. None of what you say makes any rational sense, and this is why people who think within accepted logical terms struggle with you. In the end, I think you like that…
Seth,
ReplyDeleteAnother example of your hyperbole:
Craig said: “Seth - It's not all about you. There are other participants in this conversation.”
Seth said: “I'm sorry Craig. Did you want to insult Mormons without any input from actual Mormons?”
Can you say non-sequitur; how did you arrive at this conclusion? I think, in a nice sort of way, Craig was actually trying to tell you that he wasn’t speaking with you, so quite interrupting. Nothing more; once again, the conclusion was just more stuff made up by Seth. You are truly one of the most irrational people I have met. I know that sounds harsh, but it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen did Craig say he'd prefer that religious people say "Yep, you're right, it really doesn't make sense but I believe it anyway; it makes me feel good." My reading of Craig's post is that he's frustrated with religious people for the opposite reason--that they don't attempt to prove their religion with science but rather try to shift the burden to others to disprove it.
That's a tangent, though. More importantly, I disagree with your assertion that the experiments I'm talking about are not testable or provable.
Let me give you one concrete example. A passage in the Book of Mormon states, "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."
This is what I mean by an experiment.
If you: (a)have a weakness, (b)humble yourself before God, and (c)have faith in God,
THEN result = weak thing is made strong.
That IS objective and measurable, because you can start with someone who has a weakness, let's say an addiction to alcohol; then that person follows this formula and becomes master over their lack of self-control.
It is a measurable result, a measurable experiment because the lack of alcohol addiction is a tangible result.
Yawn.
ReplyDeleteGlad I've added some bitter tragedy to your day Steve. Depth of feeling helps complete a person.
If you're not going to worship God even if he is proven, then stop acting like the question of empirical proof even matters.
Bob and I have sufficiently proven God to ourselves. It is convincing to us. But neither of us expect it to be convincing to you. If you don't want to know God, he will respect your wishes.
And Steve, it is impossible to "interrupt" someone in a public blog conversation. The closest parallel is thread-jacking. But that word only applies when you aren't actually responding to what the person is saying. Since I was responding to what Craig was saying, on a public blog, with the comments open, the idea of interrupting doesn't really apply.
ReplyDeleteNow imagine you and I are at a party. You walk over to the refreshment table and overhear me saying "Steve's mother is a horrible person."
You walk up to me and say "that's not true!"
I look at you and say "I wasn't talking to you, don't interrupt."
Doesn't really work, does it Steve?
The reason you're having a hard time carrying on a conversation with me is that I'm not allowing you to set the debate on your own terms. And you aren't really that good at improvising.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteBecause you weren’t part of it, you are correct to question that initial point, but I paraphrased him from another discussion we were having. This current dialogue is a continuation of that now discontinued post. However, Bob, you are missing the point; you keep reiterating the same point that I have refuted. Let me try another way. Let’s take your conclusion.
“THEN result = weak thing is made strong.”
You are missing much in your conclusion. In logic, this is what we call a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy; which is Latin for “after this therefore because of this.” Merely because ‘something” got stronger doesn’t mean that it was a result of your premises (God). This is blatantly faulty logic, and this is why science has to prove things objectively. So, on the grounds of logic, I reject your conclusion as being invalid. This is not objective.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteCan you say, "pedantic"? The things you argue over. I'll admit, I used the word "interrupt" in a very bastardized sense. You win this one, but it doesn't really nullify my greater point. honestly, if you could engage in meaningful conversation then, I believe, that you'd likely get people to converse with you.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your objection. Perhaps I'm just slow, but I need more enlightenment.
I acknowledge that when one event follows another, it's not proof that the first event caused the second, but when the experiment is replicated over and over again, and the result is the same each time, how is that any different from the scientific method?
I'm also not saying that my formula is the ONLY way to cure addiction or make something stronger. If you read a pamphlet on how to make fire, and it tells you that if you use matches, wood, and kerosene oil, you can start a fire--you can't call the book false on the basis that lightning can also cause fire without all of those ingredients.
So again, I fail to see how my logic is faulty when I say, "if you do this, X event will happen." That is nothing like your post hoc ergo propter hoc idea, because I am predicting the outcome BEFORE it happens.
Your formula is incorrect because there are no variables. All you are saying is if a is 1 then 2 is b and 3 is c then you are obiviously going to get to four. And that logic is just common sense. But the example you use is addiction which there many people who have a particle of faith and humble themselves before god and that is a recipe for success is just crazy. Because many have failed and continued to be junkies.
DeleteSteve, you basically told me to shut up because I'm "interrupting." Then that didn't work for you, and now I'm being "pedantic."
ReplyDeleteOK... sure...
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not believe that you are slow, not at all. I appreciate your genuine question, so thank you. As such, you asked the following:
“I acknowledge that when one event follows another, it's not proof that the first event caused the second, but when the experiment is replicated over and over again, and the result is the same each time, how is that any different from the scientific method?”
Here’s but one example: consider your thesis. Let’s say that 1,000 people do exactly that. Firstly, they humble themselves before God and they have faith in same. Now, let’s say that all 1,000 are healed in exactly the manner you propose. Does that prove God exists? The answer to this query is an unequivocal, no; as such, what if this merely the placebo effect or some other, as of yet, unexplained phenomenon. A scientist will ask the question as to what exact mechanism or process is causing these “things” to be made “strong.” However, even the word “strong” is not scientific; it’s a subjective term.
Then, think about the premises. From a scientific standpoint, I suppose we could objectively determine whether there’s a weakness. Say, you and I perform a strength test. We could determine who’s stronger, or how strong the average man is. If, however, you’re suggesting some sort of character flaw or moral issue, then this makes objective science much harder. How is “weakness” defined and how is it measured? Secondly, what does it mean to humble oneself before God? How is that measured? You see, this is not objective science, it’s a feeling.
So, yes, this is a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Again, I’m not attacking you, but, in effect, you seem to be suggesting the following: “all of these people had a weakness; they had faith and humbled themselves before God: ergo, God exists. We have yet to determine exactly what caused the people to get “stronger.” As such, there could be a multitude of other explanations. In the case here, I have to be honest; you are confusing causation with correlation.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYour emotional state explains much about why you're religious.
You mean that I'm grinning because I find this all rather funny?
ReplyDeleteSteve:
ReplyDeleteI understand your point, but I think you are also missing a bigger picture here.
I am not attempting to use my formula alone to prove that God exists. I am using my formula to prove that the formula works. The purpose of the experiment is to see if you can make "weak things become strong" by following the steps. Each successful experiment lends support to the theory that the book contains statements of truth, or that the book itself is "true."
When a book claiming to be of God has so-called "experiments" contained in it which, if properly tested, lead to predicted results, that is a significant thing. Again, not proof in itself that God exists; but EVIDENCE that he exists, evidence the type of which I daresay WOULD be admissible in a hypothetical court of law. :)
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteOk, you say that your formula works, but based on what evidence? For the purpose of making my point, I gave you 1,000 out of 1,000, but, as every scientist knows, we have to define our terms. So, what does “faith” mean and how do we measure it? What, for purposes of our experiment, does “humble” mean and how do we measure it? Lastly, what is the measurable connection between premise a (faith), premise b (humble), and outcome c (stronger)? So, maybe I had someone read the decidedly ridiculous book “The Secret” and had a similar success rate with making people “stronger”? What then does this tell us about your formula? Is it the Book of Mormon; is it “The Secret” or is it something we have yet to explain? You see, if I can achieve the same results without using your book then it isn’t the book – it’s something else. In a way, this reminds me of the old idea of spontaneous generation. We read this book and we get stronger, yet ignoring every other possibility or explanation.
Bob, with all due respect, proving that God exists is exactly what you’re trying to do. Why do I say this? I merely take it from your words. Yes, you are entirely correct in that evidence isn’t the same as proof, yet, for the most part, there is little in human endeavors that would qualify to that level. After all, gravity remains a theory, and, as Craig has noted, there is more evidence for evolution than most other scientific theorems. However, I wouldn’t suggest trying to prove the theory of gravity wrong by jumping off of a ten-story building. However, I understand what you’re trying to accomplish here, but quite simply it doesn’t work. As I have stated repeatedly, you must define your terms. And therein lays the crux of the problem; it will be impossible for you to define your terms – at least objectively. Let’s be honest; this is not science, it is religion.
Honestly, Bob, I am not missing the bigger picture here; indeed, I see what you’re trying to accomplish, but it simply doesn’t work. In effect, you are trying to say that, if the book is true then God surely exists. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly this is the implication. Although Seth might disagree, atheists do not take any pleasure in trouncing people’s beliefs, but we go where the evidence takes us. Why is it so easy to believe something that has zero empirical evidence to support? The sort of evidence we’ve been discussing about the Book of Mormon is anecdotal, at best. I can tell you, as a defense attorney, I would eat your so-called evidence for a light afternoon snack. Believe any good attorney will spot your conclusion as faulty causation. You seem a very nice guy and I am not making light, but your position with respect to this book is, as I have contended, a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteOne additional thought, but, again, I don’t want you to think that I am picking on you or arguing, but I think this question is perfect to illustrate the greater point, at hand; as such, you asked:
“I acknowledge that when one event follows another, it's not proof that the first event caused the second, but when the experiment is replicated over and over again, and the result is the same each time, how is that any different from the scientific method?”
There are two things here; firstly, you acknowledge that one event following from another isn’t necessarily the second event’s cause, but then somehow you seem to think that if one event follows another, say, 50 times that it is its causation. Whether it’s once or 100 times, we haven’t proven causation – we have merely observed correlation. Secondly, as I stated, you’re confusing causation with correlation. Now, this is where scientific theory comes in; indeed, at this point, it would be highly logical to conclude or theorize that event “A” is likely the cause of event “B”, but we are still miles away from proving it. As I noted in my other post, event “A” could have similar effects to other similar activities (i.e. reading), or event “A” could merely usually occur along with event “B”; for example, where rags are left on the floor rats to spontaneously generate from them. However, as we know, this is certainly faulty causation. We could leave a bundle of rags in the corner a thousand times and rats could appear a thousand times, but we still haven’t proven anything. Here’s another example I pulled from the internet:
“School violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down ever since organized prayer was banned at public schools. Therefore, prayer should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement.”
You see? One would have to establish factually that a lack of prayer is the reason for violence and poor academic performance. This is a very clear example because there could be myriad other causes for the two effects: violence and poor academic performance. So you asked how your position was different from the scientific method. It’s simple really, you’re drawing conclusions without proof; in other words, you haven’t proven that event “A” causes event “B”. All you have done is demonstrate that event “B” usually follows event “A”. And I am not saying that you have demonstrated this, only using it as an example.
Steve, I don't think you're really paying careful enough attention to my arguments. In fact, a lot of the things you say I am claiming are not things I am claiming. When I said, "When the experiment is replicated over and over again, and the result is the same each time, how is that any different from the scientific method?” I was not talking about causation. I was simply comparing spiritual experiments with the scientific method.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific method is described by Wikipedia in the following words: "A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
Testing a hypothesis via a scientific method is very similar to doing spiritual experiments. THAT is the crux of my argument. I am not even saying they are identical, just that they are similar.
Besides, I think the terms in my formula are definable enough to experiment with, which seems to be one of your principal objections. As I said before, you can give more precise definitions to all of these elements of the formula:
Weakness: I think this is purposefully broad to allow for many types of things. But for our purposes, we can use the example of alcohol addiction. We can assume that meets the definition of weakness for our purpose.
Humility: common dictionary definitions: "1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
2 : reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission. [So, when you have humility before God, you do not presume that your know more than him; you acknowledge your weakness.]
Faith: I have already defined this in previous comments. All it takes at first is a desire to believe.
So again, you take these pretty clearly defined attributes, throw them together, and you get a consistent result. Every single alcoholic addict who follows this formula will overcome his addiction. That is the hypothesis to be tested. You have failed to explain how such a repeatable experiment is akin to "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Again, your school violence / school prayer example completely misses the mark because that is about analyzing events after the fact. I am talking about making accurate predictions. When the scientific method makes accurate predictions, then a scientist can say he has proved a hypothesis. It doesn't matter if he knows exactly why A + B caused C. That comes later. It is enough to prove that A + B causes C when that's all your hypothesis is. "If I mix A and B together, C will happen."
When you tell me that a successful spiritual experiment doesn't prove God exists, you're getting ahead of yourself. For the moment, I'm not concerned whether the act of "being humble" is just a trick that has a physiological effect on an addict sufficient to help an addict overcome addiction and it doesn't matter whether God really had anything to do with it. I'm talking about a very narrow idea, which is that religious experimentation and scientific experimentation are similar.
To be continued . . .
In a nutshell, I started this conversation in an effort to show that Craig was wrong in his assertion that the scientific method and religion are diametrically opposed. He said,
ReplyDelete"In science, no single experiment or observation proves anything. We accept theories like relativity and evolution not because of Einstein or Darwin, but because years and centuries of experiments and observations continue to support and confirm these theories.
Occasionally an experiment will seem to throw doubt on a well-established theory, but after more work these invariably help us refine and strengthen the theory.
Religious apologetics is just the opposite."
And I am saying I disagree with that. Some branches of religious apologetics may be different from that; or at least some religious scholars may use the "you can't prove I'm wrong" tactic. But spiritual experimentation is NOT like that, and I think it's disingenuous for you to refuse to acknowledge any similarities between spiritual experimentation and the scientific method.
One final note: when Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, he didn't understand the genetic process of natural selection which eventually gave his theory so much credence. But that didn't make his theory invalid. My hypothesis idea is similar: I don't have to prove WHY the formula works in order to make the point that spiritual experimentation is like the scientific method. I only have to show that it works.
"Proving" whether or not God exists may be an outgrowth of that, but it really is not a part of the actual test.
Bob - I appreciate all your thoughts on this subject, but I think you're equating an analogy with an equality. Saying that there are similarities between the faith-testing experiments you've witnessed and the way a scientific experiment works is NOT the same as saying that your experiments are science experiments.
ReplyDeleteA scientist would analyze your experiment as follows. Subjects are told that if they have faith and pray for strength they will get strength. In other words, if A, then B. We test the hypothesis, and it proves true: those who have faith and pray do gain strength. And we do the reverse: we check that when someone does NOT gain strength (not B), then they didn't have faith and pray (not A). So we've demonstrated that "If A then B" is absolutely true.
What can you conclude from this? Only that those who pray feel stronger and are perhaps happier and better adjusted. NOTHING MORE. There isn't one shred of evidence that any supernatural forces are at work.
Here's the key error you're making. The experiment only shows, "If A then B", but you've devised an experiment that says, "If A believes B then C", and when it comes out true, you're trying to assert that B must be true.
But that's false. B doesn't have to be true for "If A believes B" to be true.
Consider this: "If a man believes his wife is faithful, then the man is happy." It's exactly the same, "If A believes B then C." We discover that this is always true. Does it prove that each man's wife is faithful? No! There's no connection. A man might simply be mistaken about his wife's fidelity.
But that's exactly the same as the experiment you described. Your experiment is valid, but your conclusion is not. Your faith in God can give you strength, but that is irrelevant to whether God exists. It proves nothing.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteWell said! Thank you for saving me for I was in the midst of a rambling response. Sometimes I have a way of over-complicating things, and you've placed into very simple terms; especially the bit about the wife. I was having trouble seeing exactly where he was going wrong, but you made it crystal clear for me too. Great job!
Craig,
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with everything you've said, except for your characterization of my motives. My main motive HAS only been to show there are similarities between the way science works and the way religion in action works (not "equality" but "analogy," as you say). I do NOT think that successfully testing a religious hypothesis is proof that God exists, so we have that in common.
The only other point I was trying to make earlier--and it is tangential to the main goal--is that if a book has hypotheses in it which turn out to be true, a logical question becomes, How did the person who wrote that book know that this hypothesis would work? Either he figured it out himself via research or whatever, he made it up and just got lucky, or he was supernaturally inspired. I think there is room in such an analysis, by eliminating impossible choices, for example, for finding evidence that God exists.
I am not attempting to make the case that God exists here, though. As I said before, I was merely trying to point out some similarities in the way faith and science work in action. Based on your understanding of my posts, I believe I have accomplished that.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI realize that you were addressing Craig, but I fail to understand what, exactly, you’re attempting to accomplish. You appear to be equivocating with regard to the word “faith.” I think that this is something Mormons attempt to do regularly; in my opinion, it appears that the Mormon Church likes to appear progressive – almost scientific in its approach, but, as I said, I think you’re weaving in and out of two definitions of the word “faith.” In your post, you said, “As I said before, I was merely trying to point out some similarities in the way faith and science work in action.” According to Dictionary.com, here are two definitions:
1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. Belief that is not based on proof
In philosophy, this is what we call the fallacy of equivocation, which is: It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). As such, I contend that, in the sense you’re using the word the “faith,” there isn’t any difference between the word “faith” and the word “evidence.” You see, for example, I have a form of faith that Stephen Hawking knows what he’s talking about with regard to physics, for he has a demonstrated and observable expertise in this field. However, by using the word “faith” in the sense of number one, isn’t at all like it would be in the sense of number two. If you attempting to imply that your “faith” experiments yield measurable results then, by definition, it cannot be “faith” in the sense on number two.
The analogy works fine. But there are definite differences.
ReplyDeleteMy own spiritual experiences work just fine as valid evidence for me - but they cannot work for you unless you can replicate them yourself. So religious experimentation is definitely different from a high school chemistry experience in the sense that it cannot produce publicly measurable results.
But keep in mind, this does not disqualify personal spiritual experience from being "evidence." It merely reveals it to be a different KIND of evidence.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteGood point. First of all, I think "faith" does have multiple definitions, but I don't think Definition #2 as you've given it is a very good one, despite what the dictionary claims.
The faith I'm talking about is the SCRIPTURAL definition of faith, "the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen."
I think to obtain this type of faith, you have to start out with something perhaps similar to Dictionary Definition #2, but if I may speak of faith quantitatively, I would say a person who has a "belief that is not based on proof" has zero to very little faith.
If I were to speak of someone who has "a lot of faith," I would be speaking of a person who has consistently seen evidence that using faith in spiritual experiments has led to desired results. Thus, that individual has great confidence that the next spiritual experiment will similarly lead to desired results.
I'm sorry, though, if I have been misleading in my use of the word "faith." It has not been my intention.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I do agree that there are definite differences, perhaps chief among them being that a scientific experiment can usually satisfy other scientists without the need for each scientist to individually replicate it. But as you seem to be saying, a person cannot effectively increase his own faith by relying on the results of other peoples' faith.
Since it's impossible to prove that person A had the requisite humility and faith when he conducts his personal experiment(s), person B must do the experiment himself to find out if it really works.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteIn a strange sort of way, I agree with what you’re saying here, but this point is entirely subjective; as I noted, you’re talking about a feeling. Furthermore, there are millions of Mormons who all claim to have the same feeling, but this really doesn’t prove anything. As Craig pointed out with the faithful wife analogy – it was a devastatingly accurate point. Although it likely will sound so, I don’t mean it to, but both you and Bob – although likely good intentioned – keep returning to the same reasoning errors. I cannot tell you how many times in my life that I have argued this or that point only to discover later that I was making a fundamental reasoning error, or that I didn’t entirely understand this or that subject. It is not my intention to force either of you to believe a certain way, but using the type of reasoning that has been presented I could merely make up anything and claim it’s true; as such, this is why the skeptics have created the Flying Spaghetti Monster – well, you can’t prove he’s not true.
As I said, both of you are placing the conclusion before the premises, and neither logic nor science works this way. Personally, I find it curious that so many people want to believe in something that – if we’re all honest – someone just made up. I guess, however, that is why Craig wrote this book. Believers often ask me whether I am afraid of death or the afterlife, and my response is always the same. No, my greatest fear is to have missed an opportunity to have lived my life to the fullest. Personally, I think religion prohibits people from doing that. And, no, I am not suggesting rape or pillage, but enjoying as many moments and experiences within my life as possible. As Marcus Aurelius so aptly noted in Meditations, “Death is a release from the impressions of the senses, and from desires that make us their puppets, and from the vagaries of the mind, and from the hard service of the flesh.” You can look at it another way, it is not death that we should fear, but the fear of death for it inhibits your ability to live a full life. I contend that religion is one life-long effort to quell this fear…
Bob and Seth - I lived for ten years with a family member with schizophrenia. She was utterly convinced that a certain dead rock star talked to her on a regular basis. Why? Because she actually heard him. When she felt bad, she would light candles and do other rituals that were essentially prayers to bring this rock star's voice into her head, and it worked -- he spoke to her.
ReplyDeleteHow is her experience any different that yours? She was 100% certain her senses weren't lying to her. It was *proof*.
Is your religion any different? What makes you think that your brain is any more reliable than hers? In fact, if you accept your own religious experience as true, how can you claim with any credibility that the rock start was NOT talking to her?
With evidence such as you are presenting. we can believe anything we like. There is no objectivity.
The simple fact is that you are both Mormon because you were raised Mormon. If you'd been born in Pakistan, you'd be vigorous Muslims.
Your beliefs are purely situational. That's a fact.
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI feel like I’m treading water. Again, I am very much trying to be and sound civil, but I also want to be honest. You said and I quote, “If I were to speak of someone who has "a lot of faith," I would be speaking of a person who has consistently seen evidence that using faith in spiritual experiments has led to desired results. Thus, that individual has great confidence that the next spiritual experiment will similarly lead to desired results.”
As I said, I feel like I am treading water but I feel that you either are ignoring Craig’s point or perhaps you’re not grasping entirely it implications. Craig’s point addresses you concern. I would only be wasting time trying to type a clearer response than his. Honestly, I do not think you’re trying to be misleading at all, for I know that this is a complicated subject. As I have always contended, I think religious people believe that atheists are trying to trick them or convince them of something, but this is patently absurd. All any atheist or scientist is trying to do is understand natural phenomena. To say that God or scripture or whatever leads to “X” or causes “X” is circular reasoning, for these concepts themselves remain unproven. This is akin to me saying, “I never lie. How do you know I never lie? Because I just said so.
Steve, in response to your comment to Seth, I think the reasoning error here is your own.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I cannot tell you how many times in my life that I have argued this or that point only to discover later that I was making a fundamental reasoning error, or that I didn’t entirely understand this or that subject."
Recently, you and I both discovered that we weren't on the same page as far as the definition of faith, and I think your most recent response to Seth shows a faulty leap in logic. So perhaps it is you that needs to recheck your base assumptions.
Case in point: You say that this is all about a "feeling." But as I have repeatedly expressed, I am talking about tangible results of faith, like overcoming an addiction.
Overcoming an addiction is NOT a feeling.
I think you should try to make an effort to really understand the points Seth and I are making before invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :) Atheists have plenty of good reasons for why God doesn't exist, but let's stay on topic.
The comparison to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is off base.
ReplyDeleteDid the Spaghetti Monster inspire the Sistine Chapel? How about Paradise Lost? Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Martin Luther King Jr.? The American Revolutionaries? Abolition?
Obviously we're talking about something bigger and more important than levitating noodles.
Craig,
ReplyDeleteYour story about the dead rock star would be a valid point in a different argument.
Bob - You did it again, made the classic mistake: "Atheists have plenty of good reasons for why God doesn't exist..."
ReplyDeleteYou're trying to redefine atheism as an assertion that God doesn't exist. That's nonsense. We have simply have realized there is no evidence at all that God DOES exists, nor do you. There isn't one shred of objective evidence for God's existence.
The atheist simply is rejecting a an incredible claim that has no foundation or evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. (There are "anti-theists" or "strong atheists" who do assert that we can prove there's no God, but most atheists make no such claim. There's no need to.)
We didn't invent the FSM. It's merely a thought experiment to show why your proofs and "experiments" are useless. Say anything you like about your God, and substitute the FSM and see what you think. Or Thor, or Odin, or Zeus, or ...
BTW, you should check out this blog about Alcoholics Anonymous. Did you know that AA is worse than no treatment at all?
Bob,
ReplyDeleteOne can overcome an addiction without your book or without faith; as such, this renders your entire theory baseless. I am sorry, but I am not making a reasoning error. I don't know what else to say, but I am heading out for a "God Free" weekend. Good luck to the both of you.
Good luck with what?
ReplyDeleteIn truth, it shouldn't be this difficult to get a few logical points across. This is the end result of a lack of logic and science education in public schools. It's astonishing, these aren't that difficult of points.
ReplyDeleteSeth - YOU missed the point. It's the belief in God that inspired the Sistine Chapel. Not God, but the belief itself. I could believe a dead rock star was giving me incredible inspirational talks, maybe even guiding the hand that holds the paint brush. That wouldn't make it true that the dead rock start was actually talking to me. The result (inspiration) only proves that I BELIEVE I'm right, not that I'm actually right. Why is that so hard to understand?
ReplyDeleteNo, the simple fact is that your God and levitating noodles have the exact same amount of evidence: zero.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteIt was a pleasantry; why are you so antagonistic?
The results are the evidence of a powerful and superior idea. Your dead rock star simply isn't even half as powerful an idea. Neither is Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
ReplyDeleteEven assuming that there is no evidence of God, our world view is simply more useful, more motivating, and more productive and frankly better than yours.
I don't assume no evidence of course. But I've never met an atheist who was offering me anything better than what I've already got.
Go ahead, offer me something better than what I have.
Craig, I surrender, it's hopeless. Logic is lost...
ReplyDeleteSeth - How about this blog: Would you rather be happy or know the truth?
ReplyDeleteWould you rather be happy with false knowledge, or less happy knowing the truth? It's really the very core of what my book, The Religion Virus, is all about.
This is a real question. And don't take it as simply an atheist-versus-theist question, what if you're simply in the wrong church? What if the Catholics or Buddhists are right? Same question.
Depends on the truth you are pushing Craig.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, would I rather be happy or know the "truth" about Michael Jackson's sock drawer.
Umm... let me think about that a moment.
Yeah... I guess I'll take the happy part.
So, what are you selling?
Sorry to hear that Steve. Good luck finding it again.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been of help to you in this discussion.
Seth - dodging again, I see. You didn't like the question, so you changed it and then ridiculed your made-up question. Why not answer the original question?
ReplyDeleteWell, your question is useless without more detail.
ReplyDeleteThere's lots of different truths out there. Most of them aren't losing your happiness over. But some are.
What truth are you proposing?
The fact that you are dodging this seems to indicate you don't really have any particular truth worth writing home about.
Without question, Seth is one of those people who will argue that "X" is blue, and then deny he ever said he was arguing for blue. Seth, the simple fact of the matter is that evidence simply bounces off of you. Sadly, I used an example of how I have been wrong in the past and how evidence forced me to concede, yet all that was done is that it was used against me. It is sad that you will not engage in hoenst debate. You keep ignoring every point that Craig or I make, and then go back to your words games. If there were any other readers on this board, they'd be forced to conclude that you're pretty much incapable of honest conversation.
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteIs unconvering the truth about life, the universe, or any other mystery less important than maintaining your belief system? What good comes from it?
That's a lot of electrons spilled over the beliefs of some loony cult and the insanity they inflict upon their members.
ReplyDeleteSteve and Craig, I applaud your patience, but it is wasted on malicious "trolls" such as Seth. And Bob seems to be dishonest as well. I never knew how really crazy the whole Mormon thing was, until I read this post and all the responses.
I shall share with you the story of our local cult, which has paid employees standing guard over blogs that get visited a lot, and do the same thing Seth does: insist on insane points in an effort to make people "quit the argument". So, using Bob's logic... Seth is an employee of your local cult, and Bob probably is too.
Hi Nikolaos,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the fray; yes, these two must have been schooled on Mars, or worse, perhaps, Mississippi. Their reasoning has been blatantly faulty, yet neither will concede one inch. Sadly, one of them is a law student. For him, I think it will be short lived...
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI really didn’t get the opportunity to read you last post to me, for my wife and I were running out the door; as such, we’re in lovely Redondo Beach for the weekend. Nevertheless, I very much want to respond to what you wrote. First of all, I’d like to say that it is probably the most disappointing thing you have written yet. Quite frankly, I find it a bit unfair, for, as I noted, I told you about my own reasoning errors for two reasons. Firstly, every person on this blog has made reasoning errors, the difference, of course, is that some of us recognize it. Secondly, it shows that I adhere to the rules of logic and evidence. Seth, keeps insisting that I am trying to force my terms, but this is clearly nonsense for logic – not me – dictates the terms. So, let me reassure, I am not the one making the reasoning errors. We didn’t discover that we were using different versions of faith; I demonstrated to you your faulty reasoning. You see? This is exactly what the religious believer does – obfuscate the conversation with smoke and mirrors. The record here is both clear and public; all one need do is read this post to see. As I said Bob, you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation – that hasn’t changed.
Both of you keep returning to the same fallacious points and reasoning and never once have either of you addressed any of our points which have been, quite frankly, fatal to your positions. You see? If either of you had the ability, honesty, or reasoning to recognize when you’re wrong (again, logic dictates this – not feeling) then this conversation might gain some traction. As I said when I started this conversation, both of you simply want to keep on believing. It’s astonishing to me, but religion is indeed a virus that causes most people who adhere to it to do horrible things – all in the name of God, morals, books, etc. Perhaps, Nikolaos is right; maybe you’re both merely paid trolls searching the internet. If so, then it shows that religion can never stoop too low.
Naw, Craig is just upset that he attracted someone exactly like him in his comments section.
ReplyDeleteSee, it's "trolling" when a religious person acts the way Craig and Steve do. But it's called "reasoned patience" when an atheist does it.
The accusation of being paid simply shows you guys don't really have a decent argument and are casting around for anything to allow you to exit this discussion with a little bit of your dignity still intact.
Like I care about the dignity of Steve Thomas, a person I have never met...
ReplyDeleteThe problem though, is that you sound crazy, Seth R. Really, delusionally, believing-in-ghosts-and-goblins crazy. And you sound like that when talking about a story in a book. I do not care about your need to hear an argument - just know that Mormonism sounds... how do you Americans say it... batshit crazy. And it is.
Well, I guess now that some random guy on the Internet has stated his unsupported opinion, we can all go home now. Nothing more to say here obviously.
ReplyDeleteHave fun kissing Craig's butt Nikolaos.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteStrangely, you're merely a random guy on the internet too. Your ability to facts and people who disagree with you is both obvious and beneficial - for you, that is. Seth, you are pathetic; you spend your days arguing in favor of obvious myths, and this doesn't embarrass you at all. As I keep saying, this is a unique brand of American religiosity, and rather than engage the powerful critiques against your religion, you do what you always do; you shuck and jive. Seth, give it up - you're simply not that smart.
Oh, were there some powerful critiques of my religion offered here?
ReplyDeleteI must have missed that.
Yes, Seth, you did miss that. If you seriously didn't see them, then you are the poster child for deliberate religious ignorance. You sidestep every important topic, and seem to think that name calling and insulting your debaters will impress readers. It won't. I don't have to debate you any more, all I have to do is let you defeat yourself. Have fun.
ReplyDeleteAgain Craig, what "truth" are you offering here?
ReplyDeleteHere you go, Seth. You get to play the part of the storekeeper!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
What? I've never seen the guy's butt, but I allow the possibility that kissing it might indeed be fun, so thanks for your wishes.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, me saying you're indoctrinated to insanity, and that your religion is worse than primitive people worshipping a warrior's tomb, is equal to wanting Craig to like me? Again, I don't know either Craig or Steve, I simply read this blog because I'm a fanatic atheist /sarcasm intended/.
As far as critiques of your religion go... you believe there is a god, how lower than that do we need to go?
"Again Craig, what "truth" are you offering here?" And you, Seth, what truth are you offering? At least the truth we're offering is backed by evidence; so again, I ask you, what truth are you offering?
ReplyDeleteYou guys are a the ones who started this, so you go first.
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteRight from the beginning we have provided strong evidence to support our claims as to why your beliefs are factually off base. Seth, if there was ever a person who needs to read this book, it’s you. I suspect that you have never once stepped foot outside the United States, and what you fail to understand is that your insular beliefs aren’t anything new. For most of the rest of the world, you’d be looked upon as another “American nutter” who possesses some extreme religious beliefs. You aren’t anything new, Seth, but you do continue to embarrass yourself. You’re willing to accept something as true (religion); something which doesn’t have any scientific evidence to support it, yet you reject evolution – something which is, for all intent and purpose, a fact. It’s a Professor Dawkins says, you’re simply a reality denier – there’s not any other way to put it.
I cannot speak for other secular humanists, free-thinkers, atheists, etc. but I can tell you that it frightens me how irrational the average American believer has become. Although he did his best, it appears that we’ve ignored Thomas Jefferson’s warnings about mixing religion with government, and when you throw anti-intellectualism into the mix – I can only think that we’re doomed. Seth, you should be proud, you’re playing your part. I understand the Mormon thinking much better than you might realize; indeed, my nephew just got back from a mission in Bolivia, and my oldest brother – the lost soul he is – is a devout Mormon. Yes, I see the logical contortions he is required to go through in order to maintain his belief system. Seth, you aren’t any different; in much the same fashion as every believer, you simply fail to understand what constitutes viable evidence. What you and Bob have put forth is, quite frankly, a shambles, but at least Bob isn’t as vacuous as you seem to be – nor is he as nasty. Seth, I don’t really care what you believe, but when your vile church endorses such hate-filled ideas as proposition 8 then you are open to criticism.
As I keep saying to you; every great point Craig or I have made you simply ignore and keep spreading your illogical and puerile nonsense. So here’s an idea, go back and reread this post and answer some of the powerful; quite frankly, the fatal critiques that have been heaved against your fables – I hesitate to call it a myth, for myths are, quite often, fun and interesting. In the end, your logical convulsions I suppose are required when one is in defense of the indefensible…
Steve - can you click on the "Contact" link at the top of this page and send me your email address?
ReplyDeleteHi Craig,
ReplyDeleteSure thing, I sent it off.
Steve, I lived in Japan for two years of my life. I got more intensely involved in the Japanese language, culture, and people than you will ever dream of.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you are simply lumping me in with a pre-determined set of attributes that you uniformly apply to all religious people you encounter.
Now, from moment one in this discussion Steve, you have managed to portray yourself as arrogant, bigoted, close-minded, irrational, afraid, paranoid, and oblivious to the implications of your own arguments.
This argument is obviously wrapping up for both of us.
If you had bothered to actually engage me, you would have discovered that there are MANY things that I disagree with in the religious community. Many things about people of faith in America actually bother me. And I am not half as blindly adherent to a lot of things in Mormon religious life as you seem to be to the tenants of atheist group-think.
I suppose you think I'm some guy thinks evolution and global warming are a myth, never reads anything but scriptures, thinks the guy who bombed abortion clinics had a good idea, votes Republican irregardless of the issues, hates gay people, went to the last Tea Party rally, listens to Glen Beck, never reads anything from the political left, thinks women aren't suited for employment, opposes interracial marriage, and would disown my own daughter if she ever married an atheist.
You'd be wrong on all counts of course. But I suppose it's more convenient for you if I leave you to your own bigoted whitewashing of all religious people. After all, if you automatically regard all religious people according to your own stereotypes, it makes them that much easier to dismiss, doesn't it?
Steve, your prejudices here have been on full glorious display - whether you realize it or not.
Just one thought I can try to leave you with:
It might be easier for you to have a conversation with a person of faith next time if you don't act like an arrogant ass while pompously bloviating about how deluded, stupid, brainwashed, and generally subhuman all those religious folks are.
Just a suggestion. This conversation could have gone a lot differently otherwise.
Oh, and for the record, I OPPOSED Proposition 8.
ReplyDeleteWhich is another tidbit you might have learned about me earlier if you hadn't acted like such a jackass.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteThis post is perhaps the most obfuscating one you’ve written. What, now you’re the victim? This is an incredibly absurd post; one which deserves a line-by-line analysis.
“Steve, I lived in Japan for two years of my life. I got more intensely involved in the Japanese language, culture, and people than you will ever dream of. I suspect that you are simply lumping me in with a pre-determined set of attributes that you uniformly apply to all religious people you encounter.”
I admit, I am surprised but we both know you were in the military – an arguably insular lifestyle nevertheless. Yes, I am “lumping you in” with all of the other knucklehead religious people because you say the same stupid things they do. When you start behaving in a rational manner and observing the rules of logic and evidence then perhaps I won’t; indeed, give me reason not to. Nice try here, Seth.
”Now, from moment one in this discussion Steve, you have managed to portray yourself as arrogant, bigoted, close-minded, irrational, afraid, paranoid, and oblivious to the implications of your own arguments.”
No, I stated my opinions on religion Seth, nothing more. You took exception with something that I said, “terrible” and “brainwashed,” but you haven’t even come close to proving your baseless assertions regarding my arrogance. You shuck and jive, Seth – that’s what you do. No, Seth, from moment one, you attacked me, and then never once have you engaged in honest conversation. My opinions – which I stand firmly by – are based upon years of study and observation; your behavior has only reinforced these opinions.
“This argument is obviously wrapping up for both of us.”
Thankfully, this is a factual statement.
“If you had bothered to actually engage me, you would have discovered that there are MANY things that I disagree with in the religious community. Many things about people of faith in America actually bother me. And I am not half as blindly adherent to a lot of things in Mormon religious life as you seem to be to the tenants of atheist group-think.”
ReplyDeleteSeth, once again, a dishonest statement; I have tried repeatedly to engage you in conversation – you wont do it. If feel compelled to ask, are you entirely sane? Seth, you are kidding me; the things you have said on the blogs are patently absurd, and fly in the face of logic and science. Never once have you taken a stand on something and used evidence to demonstrate why we are wrong; no, you do what you are doing with this post – playing victim. Seth, we clearly have demonstrated to you why there isn’t any rational basis to believe in Mormonism, yet you dismiss us with all of your emotional hand-waving. And then you use very dishonest language like “atheist group think.” We both know this is a deliberate use of meaningless and dishonest language. Yes, group think, is an easy way to dismiss a group of people whom have all agreed that the evidence speaks for itself – nicely done; that is if you’re dishonest.
“I suppose you think I'm some guy thinks evolution and global warming are a myth, never reads anything but scriptures, thinks the guy who bombed abortion clinics had a good idea, votes Republican irregardless of the issues, hates gay people, went to the last Tea Party rally, listens to Glen Beck, never reads anything from the political left, thinks women aren't suited for employment, opposes interracial marriage, and would disown my own daughter if she ever married an atheist.”
No, actually, this is where I think Mormonism has an edge of most other religions. For the most part, Mormons haven’t seemingly bought into this Religious-Right nonsense, but that seems to be changing. The rest of this nonsense, Seth, are all arguments – again red-herrings – that you’ve put up, not me.
You'd be wrong on all counts of course. But I suppose it's more convenient for you if I leave you to your own bigoted whitewashing of all religious people. After all, if you automatically regard all religious people according to your own stereotypes, it makes them that much easier to dismiss, doesn't it?
Again, more red-herrings; I only am able to judge what I see people write or what I hear them say. You have contorted logic; used purposefully misleading language, and will never yield to reason or evidence. In my books, I’d say this places you squarely into the irrational category. And guess what Seth? You’ve done this all by yourself. I suspect that you like to think of yourself as some sort of edgy intellectual Mormon defender, but, in reality, you’re really just a young kid who doesn’t really realize how stupid you sound.
“Steve, your prejudices here have been on full glorious display - whether you realize it or not.”
Yes, I suppose to some degree they have; it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that I am not a big fan of religion, but this does not mean that I’d ever treat any person poorly because of it. Oh no, they have to earn it – if you know what I mean? Seth, do us a favor; engage in honest conversation or takes your religious antics somewhere else. As I keep trying to tell you, you’re just not that smart…
No, I was not in the military actually. Never have been either. Where are you getting these assumptions from?
ReplyDeleteI'm also in my mid thirties running my own law practice. I've never received a dime from the LDS Church (though I've contributed plenty).
You know Steve, I've already gotten a taste of your "fair and honest conversation."
It basically means that the Mormons must admit that you are right, and their religion is "irrational." Anyone who is not willing to do this is - in your mind - dishonest.
Well, I don't consider my position to be irrational. I guess that makes me dishonest in your mind. But I can't do much about that. It's not my job to make your own arguments for you.
I am not going to continue with tit for tat. However, two quick things here; yes, I do earnestly apologize for I actually meant to write, “… but we both know you were [likely] in the military.” For some reason I left the word “likely” off, but this is not a stretch when one considers that in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea that we have thousands of troops stationed there. Secondly, and more to the point:
ReplyDelete“It basically means that the Mormons must admit that you are right, and their religion is "irrational." Anyone who is not willing to do this is - in your mind - dishonest.”
The above language is exactly what I am referring to. No, this is a blatant obfuscation. I am not and have never asked someone to agree with me, and this is exactly why I call you dishonest. I am asking people to examine the available evidence, and, as a result, base their beliefs on something rational – not something made up. As we have demonstrated here; in order for you to maintain your beliefs, you’ve been required to dance a logical jig. And when that fails, you try to pass me off as the information Nazi.
Leo's Magical Proof that Mormonism is Ridiculous:
ReplyDeleteStep one: A man says he will look into a hat and God will let him read an incomprehensible text off a plate.
Step two: write down everything the dude says cause its what god wants us to know/do in life.
Step three: the skeptics say "if it's truly a text then read it again to us while we compare to the writings."
Step four: the man says "uh...no... cause you made God mad with your test! He has taken away that plate and now I have to translate a different one! Don't worry, it says the same stuff! Just in a slightly different wording and order and maybe added some things, maybe took out some things."
Leo's post continued...
ReplyDeleteSeth, can we agree that there are people who claim they are talking to God who really aren't?
If you answered yes: Then it is REASONABLE to ask Joseph Smith to prove that he is translating the plates. I claim that it is UNREASONABLE to react as God did, which was to invalidate their test.
If you answered no: then you believe that everyone who claims to be talking to God really is?
Explain to me why god's actions (in this case) are the moral thing to do, or admit that your God is not moral.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWell-stated, indeed; yet, I fear it will be wasted. Sadly, many believers and Seth in particular, like to portray themselves as victims; as if there is some sort of atheist conspiracy, and the religious are under assault. However, nothing could be any further from the truth; in fact, if anything, it’s likely to be the other way around. I have heard countless people make the argument that, “Who cares, religion is innocuous, right? Besides, some people need something to believe in anyway.” However, I argue that this is perhaps the most facile arguments made in the name of religion. Indeed, the innumerable horrors that have been visited upon humankind in the name of religion are far too many to innumerate, yet, for the uninitiated, we sit idly by.
As I write, there is a 15-year old boy in Tehran who is anxiously awaiting his mother’s sentence. Ms Ashtiani was charged with adultery, found to be innocent, charged with her husband’s murder, found to be innocent, and her case of adultery was reopened. You guessed it; upon secret evidence, she was found guilty and now she awaits stoning. According to the Australian, “If precedent is followed, Ms Ashtiani, 43, will be taken from the prison in the northern city of Tabriz in which she has spent the past five years and be wrapped head to toe in a white shroud. She will then be buried up to her chest and stoned. The stones will be large enough to cause severe injury but not so big that she will be killed outright.” Many Americans like to believe their beloved Christianity is different, but I argue it is not. If not for the civilizing influence of progressive and secular thought, I argue that we’d likely have our theocracy right here in the United States. How can one human being visit such unspeakable cruelty upon another human being? Even if she was guilty, how is it that she can be punished for merely being human? Only the bigoted, closed-minded religious mind is capable of such horrors.
To this end, it is certainly high-time that we stop making excuses for the social disease known as religion, and demonstrate to people the need to accept the light of reason and tolerance. When I read this story, it made me wish that there was something that I could do, and certainly I can think of few other ways to die that will be more horrific. Yes, American religion has been tempered by progressive, secular thought and a high standard of living, but, as I have noted elsewhere, when these impediments are gone, then it is my sincere opinion that there will be little to stop the legions of American Christians. Without question I know that perhaps to some this may sound harsh, but I have experienced first-hand the cruelty, intolerance, bigotry and, most importantly, the ignorance of the religious. So, Seth is not a victim but an enabler to the continuance of cruelty and intolerance; even if just a little. After all, they all worship the same God – they merely call him something different.
Now you guys are just changing the subject.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Seth, The person above me changed the subject. PLEASE, I am begging you, please answer to the two posts BEFORE STEVE starting with "Leo's proof that Mormonism is Ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteIf you do not attempt to refute those arguments I will stop attending my LDS church and convert to atheism. I need real answers.
-Leo
Leo, if you are relying on a stupid Internet argument to save your faith, I can say right now that your faith doesn't have much of a chance. You've already made up your mind, so I suggest you get on with it.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy having your Sundays off.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYou are actually funny, hoorah! I literally laughed out loud. This is hilarious, "Enjoy having your Sundays off" I mean this with the utmost sincerity. At any rate, I freely admit that I changed the subject, but I'm more than willing to get back to the conversation at hand; provided, that we can actually speak and not insult one another...
Seth - You haven't addressed any of the challenges that I made, so here's an idea. Pick any one of the main claims of Mormonism that's likely to seem impossible to an atheist. Tell us what it is, and what evidence supports it, and we'll have a frank and respectful discussion of the merits of that claim. To be interesting, it should be a claim that can be addressed by science and history, like "Jesus came to America" rather than something unprovable like "There is a Heaven."
ReplyDeleteWhich I already told you Craig, I'm not interested in doing. As I have made plain from the beginning. I only dropped in on this thread because you were misrepresenting what the earlier discussion was about.
ReplyDeleteI have no interest in proving Mormonism to anyone here. I was merely addressing Steve's claim that the whole thing is "obviously" fraudulent. That's it. The end.
And if you remember, we did discuss some examples. And I'm just fine with where that debate ended. How about you?
As I noted, and will continue to note, Mormonism is demonstrably false; the evidence tells us this. Unless, of course, you'd like to dance a another logical jig?
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see...
ReplyDeleteThe last round we had, you pretty much had the "demonstrably" part thrown in your face, and then Craig tried to bail you out by shifting the burden of "proving" Mormonism to me.
Yes, I remember that. It was rather amusing.
Atheists usually tend to fall on their face when they actually try to assert something. Their position is strongest when they merely sit back, sneer unpleasantly, and constantly remark "you can't prove that."
Nope, Seth, we both know this isn't true, at all. The fact that you fail to understand what constitutes evidence, doesn't automatically make your position right. Sorry, you didn't even come close, and it's astonishing that you think you did. As I noted, and will keep noting: Mormonism is demonstrably false - only the most obtuse can believe such blatant nonsense. Your last statement is, quite frankly, expected from your ilk, but to state atheists can't prove anything is, as we both know, quite silly. Anyone can prove something, it just requires evidence - something you have failed to provide. This is the old Seth that I have come to know and love...
ReplyDeleteSeth, you apparently don't realize that this isn't a court of law, and that using your lawyer tricks doesn't impress anyone. The truth is that you're not up to the challenge of a real debate. You keep claiming some sort of victory in this debate, but you haven't given a single cogent argument, just a bunch of obfuscation and self congratulations. Like, where was "demonstrably" thrown in anyone's face? Certainly not by you.
ReplyDeleteI think your real goal is to have the last word. Any time anyone posts a comment, you can't resist replying. So that's my final challenge ... are you capable of letting someone else have the last word? Or is that too much for you?
The mere fact that you think you've come to know me in only two weeks worth of discussion online speaks volumes about the quality of your views here Steve.
ReplyDeleteIt's OK. I've made my point sufficient that others can get it - even if you don't.
Craig, any time anything remotely resembling a real debate emerges on this blog, be sure to let me know will you?
ReplyDeleteSeth,
ReplyDeleteIt's as I thought; you have been and remain incapable of putting together an argument. And, oh yeah, I believe you're an attorney, like I believe the moon is made of cheese. As I have noted, your reasoning, prose and syntax are not those of an educated person, sorry, but you'll have to prove that one to me, as well.
"As I have noted, your reasoning, prose and syntax are not those of an educated person, sorry, but you'll have to prove that one to me, as well."
ReplyDeleteYou should have finished with a period after the word "person" in that sentence Steve. Not a comma.
If you like, I could go back and proofread your previous comments. I had a lot of practice as a law review editor. If you'd like, you can read a casenote I wrote analyzing the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on First Unitarian Church vs. Salt Lake City Corp:
"A forum by any other name ... would be just as confusing: the Tenth Circuit dismisses intent from the public forum." (First Unitarian Church v. Salt Lake City Corp., 308 F.3d 1114, 10th Cir. 20002.) 4 Wyo. L. Rev. 753-793 (2004).
http://law.wustl.edu/Library/CILP/cilp0716jour.html
Just go there, press control(F) and type in "Seth"
What have you published Steve?
Nope, sorry, it's a dependent clause; I should have used a semi-colon. Again, Seth, I am not talking about proof-reading, am I? We all make typos but - perhaps you should look the words up - I am referring to syntax and reasoning.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you are Seth D. Rogers of Longmont, CO. then I do stand corrected, but the website you provided was useless. So, if true, then I do apologize; indeed, it's not so hard to admit when you're wrong. However, I cannot stress this enough: if what you have provided here on this website is demonstrative of your ability to reason, then, goodness me, I’d rather go pro bono. Do people really fall for this smoke and mirrors excrement? If true, it is astonishing to me that someone can go through so many years of higher education and accept religion at face value. This fact alone only helps to prove Craig’s points. In the most unequivocal terms, here is where you have failed:
ReplyDelete1. You have failed to establish that the Book of Mormon is either ancient or authored by numerous people. To make this claim without providing some sort of empirical evidence or radiometric dating is, indeed, circular reasoning.
2. Aside from you illogical and annoying word games, you have yet to provide any compelling reason for anyone to accept your claims regarding your position with respect to steel, weaponry or battle sites. Oh, yes, there are battle sites but they aren’t any Mormon battle sites.
3. You have failed entirely to muster any viable counter arguments to the archaeological evidence which clearly demonstrates the anachronisms embedded within your book.
4. We haven’t discussed the genetics but I feel reasonably certain that we’ll see more of the same; however, please feel free to prove me wrong.
Here are the facts, Seth: you are willing to accept at face value a book which has zero evidence to support it, yet you’ll make the ridiculous claim that we atheists have drank the Kool-Aid; astonishing really… All that any free-thinking atheist asks for is evidence, and nothing more. If we’re so good at drinking the beverages then why would we reject your claims? Think about it, Seth; if you have any ability to be honest with yourself, then you have to realize the tenuousness of your position. As Craig noted, your lawyer word games might work on others, but they are most assuredly falling short here.
Hope fully this doesn't post twice:
ReplyDeleteWell, if you are Seth D. Rogers of Longmont, CO. then I do stand corrected, but the website you provided was useless. So, if true, then I do apologize; indeed, it's not so hard to admit when you're wrong. However, I cannot stress this enough: if what you have provided here on this website is demonstrative of your ability to reason, then, goodness me, I’d rather go pro bono. Do people really fall for this smoke and mirrors excrement? If true, it is astonishing to me that someone can go through so many years of higher education and accept religion at face value. This fact alone only helps to prove Craig’s points. In the most unequivocal terms, here is where you have failed:
1. You have failed to establish that the Book of Mormon is either ancient or authored by numerous people. To make this claim without providing some sort of empirical evidence or radiometric dating is, indeed, circular reasoning.
2. Aside from you illogical and annoying word games, you have yet to provide any compelling reason for anyone to accept your claims regarding your position with respect to steel, weaponry or battle sites. Oh, yes, there are battle sites but they aren’t any Mormon battle sites.
3. You have failed entirely to muster any viable counter arguments to the archaeological evidence which clearly demonstrates the anachronisms embedded within your book.
4. We haven’t discussed the genetics but I feel reasonably certain that we’ll see more of the same; however, please feel free to prove me wrong.
Here are the facts, Seth: you are willing to accept at face value a book which has zero evidence to support it, yet you’ll make the ridiculous claim that we atheists have drank the Kool-Aid; astonishing really… All that any free-thinking atheist asks for is evidence, and nothing more. If we’re so good at drinking the beverages then why would we reject your claims? Think about it, Seth; if you have any ability to be honest with yourself, then you have to realize the tenuousness of your position. As Craig noted, your lawyer word games might work on others, but they are, most assuredly, falling short here.
I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat to you that I am not here to convince you that Mormonism is true. But rest assured, you have about exhausted all the freebies you are going to get here.
ReplyDeleteSteve, if you think this entire exchange has reflected well on you or your position... well... who am I to burst your bubble?
Craig, if either of you feel I haven't put much into this exchange, you are absolutely right. I never felt that anything said here was worth much of a serious response. So flippant one-liners are about the best you can expect. This blog has been an amusing diversion, but little else. Steve has been a literal grab-bag of comedic value and he still doesn't get it.
If you're done with this exchange, I am as well. No doubt you think your cause has been well-served here. You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. And I'm entitled to mine.
But if you think a self-congratulatory little atheist rah-rah session like this is going to merit a spirited defense of the faith, you are going to be disappointed. I never considered either of you worth such a response from the get-go. So quit asking for it. You don't deserve one, you wouldn't know what to do with one if it were given to you, and above all - you don't really want one.
This discussion has been a waste of time for both of us. And it has exhausted whatever frivolous entertainment value it held for me.
So, unless you have anything particularly compelling to offer, I think I might as well leave things here.
Now... you and Steve have fun consoling each other. Maybe a few YouTube videos of a heavily edited Hitchens debate will do the trick.
And just a suggestion - perhaps you will want to stick to holding non-positions next time. When you actually try to assert positive positions, things do not seem to work out so well for you.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteAlthough not proof, the evidence strongly suggests you are correct with respect to being an attorney. What our latest response really demonstrates is that when pressed, Seth Rogers is actually able to muster a little evidence to support his position; namely that when I questioned your academic qualifications, then you were Johnny-on-the-spot supplying information. What I find so frustrating about you is that nothing penetrates, for, when it comes to your book, you are one of those who will never once yield to evidence or reason. And then you attempt some red-herring of a rant about commas, yet we both know that commas were not what I was referring to; nope, it was your ability to synthesize your thoughts. Honestly, your ability to reason is questionable, and your inability to spot reasoning errors is what I was referring to; as such, here is are some perfect examples from your last post:
1. “Steve has been a literal grab-bag of comedic value and he still doesn't get it.” – Can you say, the fallacy of personal attack? To date, I remain uncertain as to what I don’t get; we both know a blatant absurdity.
2. “You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. And I'm entitled to mine.” As the philosopher Jamie Whyte points our in the book, “Crimes Against Logic,” “The fallacy lies in [your] assumption that this retort is somehow a satisfactory reply to [our] objections, while, in fact, it is completely irrelevant.” Oh yes, in other words, this is merely a pre-emptive defense – and quite arguably falling into the subjectivist’s fallacy too. Sorry, Seth, this doesn’t work, and you wonder why I question your ability to reason.
3. “But if you think a self-congratulatory little atheist rah-rah session like this is going to merit a spirited defense of the faith, you are going to be disappointed.” Here – and there were many of these – we have a classic straw man fallacy. Indeed, let’s manufacture a false argument and then attack it vigorously.
4. And the of course there were these admittedly difficult to classify, but nonetheless blatant reasoning errors:
a. “I never considered either of you worth such a response from the get-go.” Sort of reminds me of parts of the Canterbury Tales…
b. “Now... you and Steve have fun consoling each other. Maybe a few YouTube videos of a heavily edited Hitchens debate will do the trick.”
c. “And just a suggestion - perhaps you will want to stick to holding non-positions next time. When you actually try to assert positive positions, things do not seem to work out so well for you.”
This is astonishing, really; indeed, and I am the one supposedly providing the comedic value here? Seth, as I noted, your lawyer tricks and subterfuge might work on less-educated people, but, as you have seen, they don’t work here. Here’s a thought my blinkered buddy, learn to think properly and then come back to us one day, okay?
Steve, the personal attacks have been flowing from both directions here. You have been pretty consistent in your own attempts to make this argument about me personally rather than the issues.
ReplyDeleteI've been pretty consistent about what I am, and am not, here to argue. You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject and get me to argue about something else. Then you whine incessantly when people don't deign to argue on ground of your choosing. It's not that I don't have arguments to make. It's just that I don't consider you to be someone worth making them to. Since you have nothing new to offer, I don't see much point in responding to you.
Let me know when you actually have an argument to make.
Note: I mentioned earlier that we'd have to wait an see if Steve was capable of making an argument without resorting to angry labels like "liar." He's shifted the terminology to "lawyer tricks" - but I think the point is more than settled that Steve is indeed mentally incapable of making an argument without accusing his opponent of this kind of stuff.
Thanks Steve, it's been somewhat of a pleasure to see you at work.
Wow, you guys were right. I made a compelling argument that Mormonism is ridiculous and he totally ignored me. I should have insulted him if I wanted to converse.
ReplyDeleteSeth, I didn't steal my argument from anyone, I am not an LDS member (I lied suspecting you wouldn't engage my argument if I did not.) I heard the story of Joseph Smith from my best friend (who was Mormon) and converted him to Agnosticism in a single day. He is now a happy atheist and still my best friend. I also converted an LDS missionary while visiting Utah (I know, a missionary in Utah sounds redundant but its true.)
Please (I am still begging you) to address the two posts I made earlier instead of saying that I stole the idea.
-Leo
P.S. I am undefeated in competitive Lincoln-Douglas debate, perhaps now you find me "worth" debating. It should stand to my credit that you thought my posts were stolen and I have tried not to insult you or be mean.
I ignored you because you were off topic to what I was arguing.
ReplyDeleteYou could make a compelling argument for supporting free-market capitalism and I would likewise ignore you. Just having what you think is a compelling argument isn't a reason for me to debate with you. Needs to be on topic. And to get me involved, it needs to be on topic to what I'm currently debating. Since you haven't provided anything, you still don't get a cookie.
Sorry.
Seth you said,
ReplyDelete"It is when they leave that basic "I don't believe in God position" and go on to make positive truth claims like "Mormons are brainwashed" or "religious people are stupid" that they give up all rights to the non-position label. Now they DO have a burden of proof."
"you have conveniently left out here that what I was debating on the other thread was not whether Mormonism is true, but rather whether it is obviously ridiculous."
and THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY POST WAS CALLED!!!!!!!!!!! A "PROOF" that mormonism is "REDICULOUS." If there is a god he will punish you for lying. Now answer me, I implore you, for your very soul is on the line.
-Leo
Wow,
ReplyDeleteCraig? Steve?... What are you guys doing? You really seem to be tag teaming Seth. Seth I commend you for your comments and want you to know that I agree. I also commend you for maintaining composure after Craig and Steve’s sarcastic and goofy remarks.
Many non believers seem to live and walk the path of least resistance. I work with some. I never feel enriched by my conversations with them and for the most part they are self serving. Religion is important. It must be. Man has only been worshiping God and his Son since we’ve been placed on this Earth. We have been placed on this Earth to live the Gospel, choose the right and love one another. Saying that is easy, actually doing it is rare amongst most people today. The LDS Church does that. Priesthood, Elder’s Quarum and Relief Society go out visit their families once a month and care for them. Are all the members perfect? No.
We are all imperfect human beings, including all of our prophets from the time of Adam. We are all subject to choose the wrong. I believe that while we live our lives righteously, our body actually forges and changes the condition of our spirit. These changes make one more able to accept the rewards and responsibilities one would receive in God’s Kingdom.
I find it peculiar to here people try to use science to disprove God or his Son. God and Christ are the Grand Master’s of all the science. They have full command of all the elements. We have 10 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and we think we know exactly what the big picture is?
The Book of Mormon is true, but it is not designed to be proven to someone by means of physical evidences or by word of mouth. When someone bears their testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ or the Book of Mormon, it serves as a sign of hope to others that God listens and answers our prayers and will make himself know to each and everyone of us who worthily seek. Heavenly Father is not some kind of a hidden Top Secret trick, nor is His Son or Holy Ghost.
-Tony
Can anyone truly imagine if Joseph Smith just made up the Book of Mormon? To quote Hugh Nibley “What a hilarious document this will turn out to be! What an impossible tangle of oriental vagaries, what threads and tatters of half-baked narrative losing themselves in contradictory masses, what an exuberance of undisciplined fancies flying off at wild tangents! What a wealth of irrelevant sermonizing at unexpected moments (as in the Koran), what a collection of bizarre conceits and whopping contradictions it must be! Surely all one needs to do is to cite a page of the stuff—any page—to expose the whole business;…. Instead of an opium dream, we find an exceedingly sober document, that never flies off at tangents, never loses the thread of the narrative (which is often quite complicated), is totally lacking in oriental color, in which the sermons are confined to special sections, and which, strangest of all, never runs into contradictions.”
ReplyDeleteNow let’s say for a moment that one has read and asked if the Book of Mormon is true. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the Priesthood is true, Temples are true and the life saving ordinances are true and it all is here today along with a living modern day prophet. What do you say Craig? You think someone is going to give that all up because you happen to be wallowing around in disbelief and wrote a book about it?
Ok, the Homosexual thing in California. Homosexuality is not a race, culture, religion or country. As far as I’m concerned it’s Nature “Offline”. It’s a perversion. It’s not natural and it is wrong / incorrect and unclean. Obama has sustained and made the decision to dedicate the month of June to be the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender appreciation month. They claim in diversity comes strength. What is going on here? What about the family unit and straight people? What about their success and strength? Understand this Craig, though I do not appreciate homosexual tendencies or life styles, I love them and treat them the way I would want to be treated. That is all I can do. I do not judge them as the Judge of Isreal, I simply understand that homosexuality is wrong as is beastiality and without getting into detail, it’s gross and disgusting.
You know Craig, if you don’t believe in UFOs or the chupacabra and write a book about it, that would be one thing. However, to be so public with blogs and a book, to earn monetary prophet, to exhaust so much effort against “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint” simply because you don’t believe it? Because you never studied it to ponder if it’s true or ask for the Holy Spirit to manifest the truth to you? Have you only studied it to bash it and ridicule it? I still have hope for you because you’re still alive to make change for the good.
Now Craig seems to slam Seth on every occasion. What’s got you so jealous Craig? Steve chimes in with a “that a boy Craig we got him cornered”. You two enjoy each other because misery loves company. What are your qualifications to judge the Mormon Church or any religion Craig? What are you doing in your life as far as goodness or righteousness? I just see lip service. To not believe in God is one thing, to actively go against him is very dangerous in a very eternal way.
Keep up the good comments Seth, you have a fan here. As a matter of fact, if you wrote a book, I’d read it. Sorry Craig, sorry that you believe so strongly in nothing….
-Tony
Tony -- You completely avoided the topic of the blog itself and were sidetracked by Seth's comments. So I'll give you the same challenge I gave Seth, and which he sidestepped neatly over and over again. Show us some reasonable evidence that the Book of Mormon, or any of the teachings of the LDS Church, are supported by facts. The Book of Mormon is full of assertions that can be shown to be factually false, and many books have been written about that. The Mormon apologists consistently use the most contrived and implausible excuses as to why these factual errors could be true given a long chain of highly improbably what-ifs. The key to any amazing claim is strong evidence, and that evidence is completely absent.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't care about Mormonism except that you guys screw up so many things for so many people. The Mormon Church's blatant and probably illegal campaign for Proposition 8 in California was inexcusable, and was deeply offensive to all who care about their fellow citizens' rights.
So I have every right to call your beliefs into question. Mind your own business and I'll mind mine. But when you send lobbyists to my state to screw up my friends' lives, and when you send missionaries to Africa to screw up that continent even more than it already is, I have every right to take you to task.
I'm not the one spreading bigotry. The LDS Church is. I'm just trying to make the world a more moral, rational place, and religions that make amazing claims about their scriptures, and use those scriptures to harm their fellow man, are my target.
So, will you step up to the plate with evidence, or sidestep like Seth did?