quote:There is nothing ethereal or planar about the God I worship. Good! Point to it!
That's almost intentionally insulting, I might as well argue that you can't point out quarks and what they look like so therefore they are ethereal. More to the point though, God has already said in effect, "I am not yours to command."
quote: and in the texts I read, he is more or less the same throughout history.
Well, yes, they would say that, wouldn't they. In the world of actual archeological evidence that the rest of us inhabit, this is nonsense.
What? Are you saying the concept of God worldwide is different, or the God I believe in is inconsistent throughout history?
edit: also kmbboots leaving makes this thread a sausage fest and therefore far less fun. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does your god have a definite physical lotus, or does it not? If not, then in what way is it 'not ethereal'?
As for quarks, if you want to disbelieve in them, be my guest. Many people do. They're a convenient mathematical abstraction, though.
quote:What? Are you saying the concept of God worldwide is different, or the God I believe in is inconsistent throughout history?
I'm saying that the Book of Mormon, being untrue, does not give an accurate picture of god-worship through the ages. But there is considerable evidence for the beginnings of religion in lion gods and whatnot.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as it happens, by the way, I can certainly show you the track of a quark in a detector. Which is more evidence than you're able to show for your god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe my God could be in possession of a that particular genus of flowers yes. He does have a corporeal body wherewith he could pluck the flower from its roots as well; but that's just an aside.
quote:I'm saying that the Book of Mormon, being untrue, does not give an accurate picture of god-worship through the ages. But there is considerable evidence for the beginnings of religion in lion gods and whatnot.
OK my move, I say that the Book of Mormon, being true, does give an accurate picture of god-worship through a time period as early as approximately 6000BC all the way until about 400AD (with a focus on 500BC-400AD), with slightly brief yet descriptive treatment of God-worship in this very day and age.
If we conjoin the accounts of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price we find a picture that is even more clear.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And as it happens, by the way, I can certainly show you the track of a quark in a detector. Which is more evidence than you're able to show for your god.
I can show you a book that a 20 year old uneducated farm boy could not possibly have written. You showing me the track of some quark and telling me that the detector device works would not persuade me of anything.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we're down to the bone, then: I don't believe the Book of Mormon, and I do believe it is precisely the sort of book that an uneducated farm boy would write, if he wanted to sound religious. I don't see where we can make any progress from here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, we're down to the bone, then: I don't believe the Book of Mormon, and I do believe it is precisely the sort of book that an uneducated farm boy would write, if he wanted to sound religious. I don't see where we can make any progress from here.
Well first off have you actually read it? Having read it can it be said that you clearly understand it?
I really don't think you can make your statement if you have indeed read it in its entirety or even in part. If so, your view of the mental capacities of 20 year old uneducated farm boys in early 19th century America clearly does not mirror my own.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not getting into any discussions of what I "clearly understand" or not. As for the prose, consider this piece, ripped completely at random:
quote:1 And it came to pass that in this same year, behold, Nephi delivered up the judgment-seat to a man whose name was Cezoram. 2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. 3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.
"Nephi resigned from being judge, because he was tired of the people electing the wrong politicians and writing the wrong laws; and besides, they kept breaking the laws."
What's hard about that? Dressing it up in pseudo-Biblical language is a really childish trick, for yea, verily, any half-bright teenager can do it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are also educated KOM. And much more so then the smartest men in Joseph's day.
Being able to paraphrase a random passage that is historical in nature does not mean that you yourself could have written the book itself, which is a long comprehensive history with many reoccurring people, places, and themes. There are sermons saying things that Joseph himself did not even understand or expound upon until late in his life, and the book was put together if we are to believe the many witnesses who helped publishes it in the period of just over 3 months.
I suspect that saying stuff like this will get you as close to believing in the Book of Mormon's authenticity as you would in getting to me to positively believe in quarks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I was clearly away for a moment of flurried posting - but if anyone can remember back to page two:
kmbboots said:
quote:Andrew, that is not quite true.
It is more complicated than that. You can choose to believe even while acknowledging that there can be no objective proof.
Which leaves room for acknowledging that other people can make valid choices that may be different from yours.
This is where I see evangelical atheism making the same mistakes as evangelical anything else. They seem to be going past wanting the freedom to believe what they do to wanting other people to believe as they do. Worse, to thinking that other people should believe as they do. And are starting to use tactics such as derision and contempt (see "sky god" reference).
Well yes, you can believe in those two different ways - but they are both aspects of belief, by my simplified classification they are both theists/religious. They may be in different subcategories of belief - but they both believe in God.
Mucus said:
quote:Andrew W: See, thats just silly. As was pointed out on the first page, he could hardly be considered fundamentalist when he has clearly shown what evidence would be required to change his mind. Similarly, separating out what you declare by fiat is the strength of his argument or his extremism, you have never mentioned any actual advocated policy of his that could considered extreme.....
.....The only difference is in how he expresses those ideas and how vocal he is. Most atheists and agnostics who criticize him never have a problem with what he is saying, but simply how he is saying it.
In addition, thats why those who call him "extremist" can never point to a specific policy of his that is actually extreme. There are none! However, they believe that if they say that he is extremist often enough, then people will believe it regardless.
Well you mistake me, I didn't ever call him extremist - though he certainly is, if you take that to mean saying things like raising children religious is tantamount to child abuse - or in his words "labelling children" I'm sure many would consider any religious figure extremist if they suggested that raising children atheist or in a different religion was that.
I would defend the suggestion he is fundamentalist by saying that for all his protestations of waiting for evidence he acts far more like someone who believes absolutely in the fundamentals of his position - to whit - there is no God. Now I can't read minds or souls so I can't prove that - but he does stomp around acting like he has the answer to all 'important' questions about religion and that people are all wrong or stupid if they disagree with him. And that's something that far superior philosophers to him would scarecely do.
And yes - I don't like the way he expresses himself. He's condescending, nasty and seems deeply out of touch with the world to such an extent that he blames religion for far more ills than seem remotely reasonable (without ever presenting any scientific evidence that the presence of religion was a direct and responsible cause for them) and seems paranoid of 'attacks on reason' etc that he's blowing all out of proportion. He spent the last few days attacking 'enemies of reason' that amounted to tarot card readers and all sorts of pointless dreck that's essentially only an enemy to the continued association of the Stupid with their Money.
If you feel I didn't present any evidence of his attitude (you're right) then allow a momentary search to deposit a little Dawkins Gospel:
quote:"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."'
He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."
Nice guy this. And for the record the airline did let people of other faiths wear special items used in their faith - and after this did relent and change their policy - because it was stupid and wrong - the cross posed no risk to anything - and not the woman herself.
If you really want some more then you just have to read his books, and try and look at the things he's actually saying - not ever outright attacks like that - but essentially (though not constantly) rude, brash, and framing everything from a very simplistic and narrow-minded view - without ever examining (at least in his books) his own 'platform' of beliefs from which he observes religion.
There's something that has plagued the gay rights movement, and now plagues the many transexuals, (I forget the specific term right now) where things are framed with them as 'different' from the 'norm' and all that is needed to criticise them from this position is to point out how they differ from this (mostly unstated) default position and say 'isn't that bad' He does this all the time. Whenever he mentions a religious failing he decrys it in no uncertain terms, but never acknowledges that these things are often only 'failings' when observed from the humanist position he seems to take (but almost never identifies as anything). If I'm an anarchist, onanist, dadaist, almost any other type of atheist - then I'm essentially ignored here. And he never delves into the roots of "which positions is right/true/better or whatever - the religious or his personal humanist one". This makes it very hard to defend against (irrelevent of the content of the argument) - and makes arguments seem like slam dunks to those of the 'faithful' - since when you say : (par example, just made up by me)
"Under religious faith raping children is ok if God says so" - that seems true, and horrific, what a damning indictment of religious morality! - but really avoids the real issue of the fact that were that true - then it would be true, and thus ok, depending on your definition of morality and whether or not it radiates from God - none of which actually gets discussed.
And to pretend he is anything but deliberately provocative would be silly after programs like "The Root of All Evil?" an obviously polemical and non-literal title to his attack on religion, yet, if a Catholic Cardinal wrote a book of the same name about Atheism no-one would hesitate to call him 'extreme' or 'hardline' or whatever.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.s. I don't really have any of his books to hand, nor a handy online reference beyond googling away - so I'm not going to give much here but:
KOM said:
quote:Wow. Talk about the kettle and the pot. Dude, didn't your mother teach you to go for the ball and not the man? How about you try to find some example of these 'hate-or-sneer-filled forays'?
Well for starters his statement that the God of the old testament as:
quote:arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
pretty much puts paid to that. And he doesn't even go on to defend his point of view - he just takes it as read that, for example, that God's actions seen from his point of view, was how they actually were.
And he doesn't believe that religious beliefs should be 'respected', as shown by his happy reference to the Bible as 'fiction', (again starting from his own unmentioned scientific world view), as he feels this respect happens unfairly all the time- and yet people still think that I'm just stirring when I say he's a bit of a cock. If you don't give people's views some respect then you are being rude and sneering, whether or not you think you are. And I think that he himself would not shy from admitting that, any more than I would be shy of admitting sneering at pointless fortune telling things, or horoscopes - things that are easily and often proved wrong in all their claims. (And no, my religion is not in the same category, though Dawkins would mostly just like to ignore more sophisticated or nuanced religious beliefs, as if they didn't exist.)
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andrew W: P.s. I don't really have any of his books to hand, nor a handy online reference beyond googling away - so I'm not going to give much here but:
KOM said:
quote:Wow. Talk about the kettle and the pot. Dude, didn't your mother teach you to go for the ball and not the man? How about you try to find some example of these 'hate-or-sneer-filled forays'?
Well for starters his statement that the God of the old testament as:
quote:arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
pretty much puts paid to that.
I don't see how. If the topic is religion, God is "the ball."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being able to paraphrase a random passage that is historical in nature does not mean that you yourself could have written the book itself, which is a long comprehensive history with many reoccurring people, places, and themes.
But all you are saying is that the BoM is a long story. It's just not very hard to make up long stories about fantasy countries, and the wars they fight, and brave people who go out and preach what they know is right, and so forth. Children do this almost unconsciously; certainly if you were to write down my own fantasy life from the age of twelve or so, you'd have a rather nice multiverse with brave heroes, foul (if one-dimensional) villains, sacrifice, magic, and what-have-you. Raise me in 1810s America and no doubt I too would have couched my dreams in folk-Christian terms. This is not difficult, and it doesn't require any education; the only unusual thing is that JS wrote the stuff down and it resonated with some others. And as for being long, here's an exercise for you which I suggest in all honesty, without any intention of being derogatory: Take the chapter that I quoted from above, Helaman 5, which I picked quite at random, and strip away all the "And it came to pass" and "behold" and the other sentence elements that are just scaffolding. I'm not talking about adjectives, here, but only about those parts that are there purely to sound formal. How much actual narrative is left? If you haven't cut it down by a fourth I'd be highly surprised. For example, consider this lot:
quote:Behold, my sons, I desire that ye should remember to keep the commandments of God; and I would that ye should declare unto the people these words. Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I have done that when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good.
Which, paraphrased as I suggest, becomes:
quote:Keep the commandments of God, and preach them. Remember the names of our ancestors who came out of Jerusalem, and their works, and that they were good people.
That's an 80 percent saving right there. Granted that Helaman is clearly a long-winded old bugger and this is therefore an extreme case, I think you'll find that this treatment doesn't leave that much in the way of actual events.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't give people's views some respect then you are being rude and sneering, whether or not you think you are.
Should I give them respect if I believe they are harmful? Should I respect, to take an extreme example, the views of Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" church, or neo-nazis, or Osama bin Laden?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:(And no, my religion is not in the same category, though Dawkins would mostly just like to ignore more sophisticated or nuanced religious beliefs, as if they didn't exist.)
I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide this. Everybody has to decide for themselves what falls into the fortune-cookie category that's worthy of dismissal; but there has grown to be a convention in the West that you don't mention it if you happen to believe this about somebody else's religion, because they would sneer right back at yours. What you are objecting to is that Dawkins doesn't respect this implicit ceasefire.
quote:Well for starters his statement that the God of the old testament as:
quote:arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
pretty much puts paid to that. And he doesn't even go on to defend his point of view - he just takes it as read that, for example, that God's actions seen from his point of view, was how they actually were.
We are talking about a character who gleefully orders children killed, mind you.
quote:And he doesn't believe that religious beliefs should be 'respected', as shown by his happy reference to the Bible as 'fiction', (again starting from his own unmentioned scientific world view), as he feels this respect happens unfairly all the time- and yet people still think that I'm just stirring when I say he's a bit of a cock.
Do you believe the Rig-Vedas are fictional, or true? In particular, in those parts where actual gods are referred to as using magical powers that could not possibly have a natural explanation, is that fact, or fiction?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "It's obvious to me that the crucial question is, is atheism an alternative religion or an alternative TO religion?"
Or how about simply the absence of religion?
"Imo, I've always thought of atheists as people who don't believe and just want to be left alone."
Why?
Because that's how I'd want it if I was atheist. "I don't believe in God, leave me alone and stop trying to evangelize me."
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "Frankly, if it were me chosing, I'd want to be left alone and allowed to think what I want. Isn't that the point? You don't want to be organized or forced to believe like everyone else?"
You can make your own decisions sans the solitude. Besides, most of us as individuals don't have all the answers. We need the experience and insight of others sometimes.
I'm not talking about being a hermit, I'm talking about people of other religions leaving you alone and allowing you to live as you see fit.
It just seems to me that once you start to organize around a central belief, socializing around that belief, holding meetings to discuss that belief, defending that belief and evangelizing that belief, you've got a religion. Even if that belief is that you don't believe. And once you have a religion, aren't you just like the Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hare Krishnas or whoever that want you to believe like them?
In my humble opinion, if I were to be an atheist, I'd just want to be allowed to do my own thing and not believe in God all I wanted without people giving me a hard time about it. I mean, isn't that the appeal of being atheist? No religion, no forced beliefs, no arbitrary dogma or doctrine, no oppressive organized church? At least it was in my day.
Honestly I don't care if atheists want to get together and have conventions or march on Washington or form political action committees. But it does seem to me that the atheist thing is organizing and becoming its own religion, which just seems like it defeats the purpose to me.
posted
KOM: But that is not how people talk. People DO put some poetic or artistic, as well as individualistic tones in their speech. If one reads the separate books found within the BOM you DO find stylistic differences in the writings that are particular to each author. The tone of the book is not consistent throughout.
quote:Keep the commandments of God, and preach them. Remember the names of our ancestors who came out of Jerusalem, and their works, and that they were good people.
You failed to mention that the two boys were named after two specific ancestors and that is significant to the story.
Again its far simpler to simplify it then it is to jazz it up. Go ahead and try it, I am genuinely interested. Remember the Book of Mormon is not supposed to be just a history book, its SUPPOSED to let the reader know important significant events in the history of these people that relate to God's dealings. There are sermons that are of very mature and insightful mien.
I have myself a book that chronologically lists much of what Joseph Smith himself said in sermons and in remarks to his friends. His journals are also open to the public.
Why is it that his language early on is very unrefined and even ignorant but only by about the time of his death do we see his speech reach the majestic prose that the Book of Mormon frequently utters?
Even in his prepared sermons his command of the English language does not come close to what the Book of Mormon demonstrates.
Again the book was written in 3 months. I could spend all day talking about how complex the book is but until you've read it in its entirety and had somebody explain to you some of the things that are not obvious to a first time reader you just won't see that there is no way the book was written by Joseph Smith unless we decide that he was a genius, which is a distinct possibility.
But he also has to be a genius who masked it and gradually revealed it in degrees until his death.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide this. Everybody has to decide for themselves what falls into the fortune-cookie category that's worthy of dismissal; but there has grown to be a convention in the West that you don't mention it if you happen to believe this about somebody else's religion, because they would sneer right back at yours. What you are objecting to is that Dawkins doesn't respect this implicit ceasefire.
Nope. My religion makes no empirical claims that can be tested - and therefore cannot be proved wrong. Astrology makes claims about our physical universe that are demonstrably untrue (vis a vis it's predictive power.) If people's religion makes empirical claims that it does not fulfill, feel free to sneer at it, as I would, and as I would sneer at an invention that did not do what it claimed - but where it does not, you cannot be sure you are right and it is not, so have some respect.
quote:Do you believe the Rig-Vedas are fictional, or true? In particular, in those parts where actual gods are referred to as using magical powers that could not possibly have a natural explanation, is that fact, or fiction?
What sort of magical powers could not have a natural explanation? Surely 'natural' really means 'that which is' - and if they did in fact use them - then the powers are clearly natural. I don't believe in these guys, but I wouldn't declare them fiction. I'd simply say, - I do not believe in them. But here - I'm being respectful to something that I believe to be wrong, but have no absolute proof about, (I'm unsure of the specific claims of the Rig-Vedas but if they make some empirically testable ones- I say lets go for it - test away). Is that so hard?
And anywho - I'm not here to defend the principle of not being a dick to religious people - I'm merely pointing out that Richard Dawkins repeatedly is one.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are talking about a character who gleefully orders children killed, mind you.
This is a completely disingenuous statement. It makes discussion of religion with you a pointless waste of time, which is a pity because I enjoyed what you had to say up until that point. But why take my word for it, here is some fire and brimstone Old Testament for you.
According to God himself,
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
and from the same chapter,
"For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."
Nothing cryptic about the language either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In fairness, I think your second sentence lost some of the meaning. Try:
"I have named you for our ancestors who came out of Jerusalem, so that you might recall their good works whenever you recall your own names, and know from those works that they were good."
---------
quote: It just seems to me that once you start to organize around a central belief, socializing around that belief, holding meetings to discuss that belief, defending that belief and evangelizing that belief, you've got a religion.
By this logic, NAMBLA is a religion.
-----------
quote:I could spend all day talking about how complex the book is but until you've read it in its entirety and had somebody explain to you some of the things that are not obvious to a first time reader you just won't see that there is no way the book was written by Joseph Smith unless we decide that he was a genius, which is a distinct possibility.
Card makes this argument, too, which I find ludicrous in the extreme.
After all, is it REALLY more unlikely that someone is a genius than it is that he's the chosen of God? There have been thousands of geniuses in recorded history; how many prophets have there been?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can show you a book that a 20 year old uneducated farm boy could not possibly have written.
Muslims make a virtually identical claim about the Koran. Since their prophet was even less educated than Joseph Smith, should we give Mohammed's work more weight or does the fact that his followers didn't claim that his only took three months cancel that out?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it doesn't do anything that you can detect, then what purpose does it serve?
I didn't say that. I said that it makes no empirical claims that can be tested. With the assumed proviso of 'by us'. It's a very different thing.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the term "empirical" is used, I think the observations or experiences it refers to are generally assumed to be universally replicable, not subjective interpretations.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say that. I said that it makes no empirical claims that can be tested.
If there are detectable phenomena, how is a claim regarding such phenomena not an empirical one? Could you provide an example?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a completely disingenuous statement. It makes discussion of religion with you a pointless waste of time, which is a pity because I enjoyed what you had to say up until that point. But why take my word for it, here is some fire and brimstone Old Testament for you.
According to God himself,
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
and from the same chapter,
"For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."
Nothing cryptic about the language either.
This is the problem with religious texts. Both sides can cherry pick to bolster their argument. My problem with religion or any group or organization is that when you have to cherry pick which parts you follow and agree with, i find it disingenuous as a follower or member of that group, and a black mark on the whole organization.
quote:edit to add: Strider, move in anytime. I am only an adequate cook, but I give excellent backrubs.
well, i never said i was a great cook, just that I enjoy it. Either way, you had me at "backrubs".
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
But we can play dueling quotations all day. The Bible contradicts itself in any number of places.
quote:Nope. My religion makes no empirical claims that can be tested - and therefore cannot be proved wrong.
Unless you don't believe prayers are answered, this is untrue.
quote:I don't believe in these guys, but I wouldn't declare them fiction. I'd simply say, - I do not believe in them.
Oh, right. You don't believe X is true, but you don't believe it's a fiction, either. If I may ask, just what do you call whatever is in between these two options? A fictruth? Or to put it another way, just what is the difference between
"I don't believe the Rig-Veda is true" and "The Rig-Vedas are fictional"?
quote:What sort of magical powers could not have a natural explanation?
For example, when somebody throws a spear and a city is destroyed.
quote:Why is it that his language early on is very unrefined and even ignorant but only by about the time of his death do we see his speech reach the majestic prose that the Book of Mormon frequently utters?
Excuse me? You're asking me why he gets to be a better speaker as he gets more experienced, and more formal as people come to expect it of him? Further, I don't actually find the sort of stuff you find in the BoM very impressive; it's basically scaffolding, like when a politician says "I'm glad you asked that question" to give himself time to think. An unbiased observer might not notice the pattern you've been trained to see. Or are you going to tell me that this was your own, original insight, and nobody in any study group gave you so much as a hint that this might be the case?
quote:Remember the Book of Mormon is not supposed to be just a history book, its SUPPOSED to let the reader know important significant events in the history of these people that relate to God's dealings.
Well then it should get on with the events, and enough with the "It came to pass" already! This is not the act of a skilled storyteller, it's the cheap parlour trick of someone who wants to look impressive and learned. Further, you didn't address my point that anyone can make up stories of faraway lands.
quote: There are sermons that are of very mature and insightful mien.
You know, it's not actually very difficult to write a sermon. Humanity has known for 3000 years how to treat each other. The difficulty has always been in living up to it. Writing a pious-sounding sermon is proof of nothing except having listened to the preacher every Sunday for some years.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there are detectable phenomena, how is a claim regarding such phenomena not an empirical one? Could you provide an example?
They are of course empirical, - just not testable.
For example : God is outside time. God can create a beach ball right in front of me out of nothing. God created the universe + everything.
All of these are empirical claims that cannot be tested. If you have a test that can falsify any one of these, be my guest.
quote:Oh, right. You don't believe X is true, but you don't believe it's a fiction, either. If I may ask, just what do you call whatever is in between these two options? A fictruth? Or to put it another way, just what is the difference between
"I don't believe the Rig-Veda is true" and "The Rig-Vedas are fictional"?
Politeness mainly. I don't think that there is a binary between truth and fiction. Fiction is a word reserved mostly for deliberately fictional works, or direct lies. I would not describe scientific texts of the past as 'fiction', nor anything else that people write, believing it to be true. I would however suggest that they are wrong.
Would you describe Newton's Laws as fiction?
But that's not really the issue (neither's this, the issue was actually that Dawkins was an annoying creep, which I'm glad no-one seems to dispute any more) - I personally believe that some atheists (as in those that believe there is no God, including in particular those who think they 'know' there isn't) are deluded faith-holding morons who are just as bad as the cretinous religious people who've often inspired them to reach for the other extreme in exactly the same way - but except for here, for the purpose of making that analogy, I wouldn't say it like that because I'm not out to be a dick to people just for kicks. I'd probably say that "positively asserted atheism is a position that requires faith, as the truly logical position is that of agnosticism - since none of us know for sure."
quote:For example, when somebody throws a spear and a city is destroyed.
If that happened - it is natural. If it didn't is isn't. You're just assuming it didn't because it seems unlikely to you, knowing what you do about the world around you. But the real question at the root of this is - did it happen? Because the property of 'naturalness' derives directly from the answer to that.
It's easy to look back on things that are different from that which occurs in our own lives and call bullshit, but it is both scientifically and philosophically flawed to do that. The easy flaw in that argument, is to look at the hypothetical situation where God(s?) did create the universe, with a set of rules, but also changed the rules/used a magic Godspear to destroy that city. How would that situation appear to us - exactly the same as this one does right now, i.e. no spears destroy cities now, but there is a record of one that did. Obviously this is not a claim towards that happening - since it is equally possible to look at the corresponding hypothetical - how would it look if that wasn't the case and it's just a legend from the time before science - wow just the same. But this goes to show that you cannot make any judgements about the likelyhood of something having happened in the past - merely on the basis of your own experience of the present. i.e. no spears blow up now =/ no spears have ever blown up, nor can ever
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the term "empirical" is used, I think the observations or experiences it refers to are generally assumed to be universally replicable, not subjective interpretations.
I'm not talking about subjective interpretations. For example - it's empirically provable that I can raise my arm above my head - and we can try that experiment any time you like and it will succeed. However, try that experiment when I have no interest in co-operating then there is no way you can test this. You could forcibly move my arm above my head, but that provides no evidence that I can raise it myself. This is the situation with God. Yes we believe things that could be empirically tested with God's cooperation - i.e. He can create energy from nowhere etc, but without God onside (and He seems to have no interest in involving himself in my hypothetical experiment here) there's no way of testing these things - so when I say God created the universe and everything in it and is either maintaining it moment to moment, or designed it perfectly to flow from the word Go, I am not making any empirical claims about the universe.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd probably say that "positively asserted atheism is a position that requires faith, as the truly logical position is that of agnosticism - since none of us know for sure."
Again, by that logic, I am "agnostic" on the issue of unicorns and Santa Claus -- as are you. That definition of "agnostic" is functionally useless, for all that it's the only "truly logical position."
The idea that none of us can refute an assertion unless we can demonstrably disprove it is a courtesy that is extended to religion only because we traditionally extend it to other personal claims. If a friend tells you he saw George Bush the other day, you are likely to believe him unless he has a history of lying, or unless you have evidence of George Bush's whereabouts that contradict your friend's story; that sort of claim of personal experience is one for which we tend to reverse the burden of proof.
We do not generally reverse the burden of proof for claims about the natural world. Rather, we let those unchecked claims of personal experience represent just one data point in favor of the possibility. If a friend tells you that he saw an apple fall, you believe him; if a friend tells you that he saw an apple leap off the ground and fly into the distance, you cross-check that with your other experiences involving gravity before deciding to believe.
Would you say that the only logical position, when a friend tells you that he saw an apple fly into the sky, is to not be sure one way or another? What if he told you that he saw your long-dead mother? Or if he told you that he was abducted by aliens? What if he said he saw an apple fly into the sky at the moment he was thinking of your long-dead mother, and that this proved the existence of ghosts?
There is no way to obtain direct experience of these items, and no way to testably refute them. Does that mean that our default assumption should be to consider them true, out of deference to our friend -- or should we instead (and still charitably) conclude that our friend may be being honest about his experiences while still drawing the wrong conclusions from them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andrew W: Well for starters his statement that the God of the old testament as:
quote:arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
Arguing about whether this is true is likely to get us no where. Again, I go back to my original problem, when you separate the idea from the rhetoric, is this actually an extreme idea?
No. The idea that the God of the Old Testament is a horrible character is common among atheists. Even among many Christians, the objection would not be "Well thats not true" but would much more often be "Well, thats not the case any more and besides, we focus more on Jesus and the New Testament."
The other problem is that unless you are pyschic, how could you possibly know whether he was filled with hate when he wrote it? Here were his actual intentions.
quote: My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. I don’t know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas “blasphemy is a victimless crime”.
While he failed for you, I would say that that a very Christian audience in Lynchburg, many from Liberty University to boot found it very humourous and even applauded.
quote:This is the problem with religious texts. Both sides can cherry pick to bolster their argument. My problem with religion or any group or organization is that when you have to cherry pick which parts you follow and agree with, i find it disingenuous as a follower or member of that group, and a black mark on the whole organization.
This has little to do with cherry picking. KOM made a statement that if true basically blows the Christian God out of the universe.
KOM:
quote:"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
1: That is a Psalmist talking, possibly David, not God.
2: That quotation specifically speaks of destroying Babylon which is an oft repeated metaphor for the element of wickedness in the world. Christians to this day speak of leaving Babylon as a metaphor for shrugging off sin.
And no the Bible does not contradict itself all the time, and no you don't have to straint the verses to get them to harmonize.
quote:Excuse me? You're asking me why he gets to be a better speaker as he gets more experienced, and more formal as people come to expect it of him? Further, I don't actually find the sort of stuff you find in the BoM very impressive; it's basically scaffolding, like when a politician says "I'm glad you asked that question" to give himself time to think. An unbiased observer might not notice the pattern you've been trained to see. Or are you going to tell me that this was your own, original insight, and nobody in any study group gave you so much as a hint that this might be the case?
Yes, are you astounded that I noticed this gradual increase in inteligence on my own without any suggestion of the idea? From my own observations the Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon would not have been capable of writing that book on his own until at the very earliest, close to his death.
quote:Well then it should get on with the events, and enough with the "It came to pass" already! This is not the act of a skilled storyteller, it's the cheap parlour trick of someone who wants to look impressive and learned. Further, you didn't address my point that anyone can make up stories of faraway lands.
Sorry if the people of the BOM don't write in a style that is friendly to modern day readers. The BOM is not just a story of faraway lands. Its a narrative compilation of several historical texts written by different authors, with a purpose of bringing people to Christ. Why make it so complex if your making it up in the first place? Why not just create one author who paraphrases everything written throughout history. No, instead we get juxtaposations from Mormon in the middle of the text where he talks about the compilation process, some books are ceremoniously begun and concluded while others are reduced to, "Person X got the book, didn't write anything, gave it to his son."
I agree that anyone can just write a story, but there is too much complexity to the language, and world of the BOM that makes a quick 3 month write impossible for Joseph Smith.
quote:You know, it's not actually very difficult to write a sermon. Humanity has known for 3000 years how to treat each other. The difficulty has always been in living up to it. Writing a pious-sounding sermon is proof of nothing except having listened to the preacher every Sunday for some years.
You sound just like somebody who looks at a complex chemistry equation pages long and says, "Thats no big deal! See look I can do that too! "OH+2NZ ----> Na5N.""
Sermons in the Book of Mormon are of so many different topics its mind boggling. Many are on topics that Smith would have NEVER heard in any church house within 1000 miles. There are sermons directed to the BOM people, there are sermons directed to indiviual characters, there are expositions on the Law of Moses, Christ's role in fulfilling the law, the relationship of Christ to the Father, there are even sermons directed to the reader themselves.
All wrapped together in a congruent story that spans centuries, deals with multiple civilizations, and has a purpose behind it all.
I just don't believe you could duplicate the feat KOM, I don't think anyone can.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: I agree there are plenty of geniuses. But I don't think Joseph Smith was one of them. He either has to be genius or chosen of God to bring the Book of Mormon forth.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that anyone can just write a story, but there is too much complexity to the language, and world of the BOM that makes a quick 3 month write impossible for Joseph Smith.
A quick question, how do we know it was just three months? Where was it recorded, and who recorded it?
I don't know enough about Smith or the BOM to give an opinion about his truthfulness.
But, at least hypothetically, if he made up this story I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to think he might lie about the amount of time he took to write it. Or lie about getting help from others to put it together.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that anyone can just write a story, but there is too much complexity to the language, and world of the BOM that makes a quick 3 month write impossible for Joseph Smith.
Just a quick question, how do we know it was just three months? Where was it recorded, and who recorded it?
I don't know enough about Smith or the BOM to give an opinion about his truthfulness.
But, at least hypothetically, if he made up this story I don't think it would be too much of a stetch to think he might lie about the amount of time he took to write it. Or lie about getting help from others to put it together.
There were many people around Smith while he was translating, obviously any of them could be liars, but they all wrote in their journals and said it took Joseph Smith more or less 3 months to complete translation work.
Many of them were never permitted to even be in the room while he translated. They just knew when he got the plates and when he said he was done. There was incident where a portion of the plates were done and the manuscript was lost and translation had to stop and after some time resumed. Obviously none of this proves that Joseph Smith didn't lie about all of this and got his entire family and several friends/neighbors to go in on it and never reveal the lie ever in their lives. Seems like a pretty superficial detail to go through such great lengths to lie about. He could have easily taken his time and written the plates at a slow pace and then published them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There were many people around Smith while he was translating, obviously any of them could be liars, but they all wrote in their journals and said it took Joseph Smith more or less 3 months to complete translation work.
Here's my issue. Who's to say that he didn't take several years of his life coming up with the BOM, and that it just took 3 months to finally get it down on paper?
And am I wrong, or did no one else ever actually see the plates?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are we assuming that Joseph Smith was the only author? Why couldn't the BOM be a collaboration on the part of some sect of the Masons, for example?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
15 people in total claim to have seen the plates and handled them. Oliver Cowdery wrote down most of the manuscript as Joseph Smith dictated it from across the table behind a curtain.
Joseph Smith was 21 when he finished the plates, the younger we take him the less likely he would have been able to write the story in the first place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 15 people in total claim to have seen the plates and handled them. Oliver Cowdery wrote down most of the manuscript as Joseph Smith dictated it from across the table behind a curtain.
Joseph Smith was 21 when he finished the plates, the younger we take him the less likely he would have been able to write the story in the first place.
Why are you being so age-ist?
But anyway, this thread has gotten way off course. I don't want to help turn it into a big Mormonism debate. Unless everyone else wants to...in which case, cheers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why make it so complex if your making it up in the first place?
Well, for one thing, I know at least one person who says that its complexity is an argument for its validity. If you were intending to make a convincing hoax, that might be helpful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Why are we assuming that Joseph Smith was the only author? Why couldn't the BOM be a collaboration on the part of some sect of the Masons, for example?
Joseph Smith to the best of my knowledge did not associate with the masons until he moved to Illinois which was decades after the BOM was published.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why make it so complex if your making it up in the first place?
Well, for one thing, I know at least one person who says that its complexity is an argument for its validity. If you were intending to make a convincing hoax, that might be helpful.
That is true. But why make the actual book itself complex, rather then the details of the story intricate and historically accurate?
Why make up the story of God punishing Joseph Smith for not obeying him in regards to the original manuscript and taking away the plates? Wouldn't propegating such a story weaken his position as a prophet?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smith's father and older brother were Masons. He was around 19 when he started looking for buried treasure with folk magic, and 24 when he gave his friend Oliver his first "divine" instruction. I think it's not unreasonable for skeptics to conclude that he may well have been knocking around the idea of a new religion for a while; at the very least, it seems disingenuous to refer to him as a "farm boy."
posted
I finished Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great" recently, and I believe he makes the claim that many portions of the BOM were taken directly from the bible with only slight changes (names and such). If the thread is still on this topic when I get home, I'll supply his actual quotes.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joseph Smith to the best of my knowledge did not associate with the masons until he moved to Illinois which was decades after the BOM was published.
I don't think your knowledge is correct then.
quote:Freemasonry provides a point of entry into this very complex story. As it had been in Vermont, Masonic fraternity was a dominant feature of the cultural landscape in Joseph Smith's Ontario County. . . . The dense network of lodges and chapters helps explain the Masonic symbolism that runs through the story of the discovery of the Golden Plates. Most obviously, the story of their discovery in a stone vault on a hilltop echoed the Enoch myth of Royal Arch Freemasonry, in which the prophet Enoch, instructed by a vision, preserved the Masonic mysteries by carving them on a golden plate that he placed in an arched stone vault marked with pillars, to be rediscovered by Solomon. In the years to come the prophet Enoch would play a central role in Smith's emerging cosmology. Smith's stories of his discoveries got more elaborate with time, and in June 1829 he promised Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris that they would see not only the plates but other marvelous artifacts: the Urim and Thummim attached to a priestly breastplate, the 'sword of Laban,' and 'miraculous directors.' Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith later described three or four small pillars holding up the plates. All of these artifacts had Masonic analogues. . . . Smith's sources for these Masonic symbols were close at hand. Most obviously, Oliver Cowdery would have been a source, given that his father and brother were Royal Arch initiates; one Palmyra resident remembered Oliver Cowdery as 'no church member and a Mason.' . . . A comment by Lucy Mack Smith in her manuscript written in the 1840s, protesting that the family did not abandon all household labor to try 'to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing magic circles, or sooth-saying,' suggests a familiarity with Masonic manuals: the 'faculty of Abrac' was among the supposed Masonic mysteries (Refiner's Fire, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 157-158).
---
Moreover, I presented that just as a possibility. Joseph Smith was deeply involved in occult societies (e.g. magic treasure finders) for most of his early life, any of which could have constructed the BOM.
I honestly don't care. I'm just pointing out that there are tons of more options than you seem to be allowing...which, ultimately, is sort of the point of the thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
