12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 04:42 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Yeah, I can tell from your insightful and penetrating assessments.
You only reap what you sow.Rolleyes

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Cathym, you are being idiotic, self-referential and belligerent as usual. Your intended analogous examples are absurd: divination vs. murder and the biography of an eminent person as template for everyone else. Really? The silly shit that you do in your life doesn't have any special status--who cares how you decided as a jury member or how you decide who to employ? That you behaved in a particular way doesn't demonstrate that you didn't behave irrationally.

You haven't presented any evidence that Smith was convicted of any offence. Further, even if he was convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter"[1] it does not mean that he necessarily acted dishonestly. (Almost) Certainly no TV psychics have supernatural power; certainly some of them are knowingly being deceptive; but certainly some part of them sincerely believe they have psychic powers. I suspect that Smith was delusional in that way. His references to and uses of Masonic symbolism and ritual suggest that he did believe in "magic". I'm sure Maklelan will correct me if I am wrong: Smith was reputed to carry a Jupiter Talisman on his person. If he didn't believe in "magic" he would not carry such a thing.

EK, you appear to be trying to persuade Makelan to commit to something he doesn't believe in because you have some URLs prepared for the task. You unpacked your generic anti-Mormon hammer and you are determined to use it even if there are no nails to use it on. Maklelan even used the phrase "charter myth" but it seems his intended meaning is not being grasped.

I quote Glibert Ryle on this:

"A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them."[2]

If you respond, "but that's just a story" to one of Aesop's fables or to the myth of Sisyphus you have missed the point. Even if the BoM is 100% invention it does not entail that it is a worthless text. As a myth it can instruct on existential concerns (e.g. virtue, puprose). I am not endorsing it in that capacity any more than I am endorsing any other mythology as instructive, I am merely trying to redirect your gaze. Maklelan didn't invent this approach to scripture. I am uncertain who originated it but it is most often associated with Vaihinger and his huge tome (with a suitably long title) The Philosophy of 'As If': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind which defined the epistemological theory termed fictionalism. Fictionalism is a general epistemological theory, i.e. it does not pertain only to religious myth.

To pre-empt Cathym's likely philosophically illiterate response, Milton Friendman--who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics--published a seminal essay in 1953 named The Methodology of Positive Economics[3]--which I'm sure Cathym the economics genius hasn't read--that advocated fictionalism as the guiding epistemology for economic theorising. Just to clear here, Friedman's essay returns "About 1,210,000 results" on Google Scholar and Hausman describes it as "...the most influential work on economic methodology of this [the 20th-] century."[3]. So this isn't a loopy fringe idea. Friedman contended that an economic theory shouldn't have its value judged with reference to how "realistic" it was--he argued that realism was irrelevant and that theory should be judged in terms of usefulness and in economics that means (mainly) predictive power.

On a fictionalist account a religious myth too isn't to be judged on its factuality and historicity but rather in terms of its usefulness. A useful religious myth is one that provides such things as inspiration, social cohesion, moral guideance and a sense of purpose.

The broader question of the soundness of fictionalism as an epistemology is beyond the scope of this discussion (and beyond the competence of someone like Cathym that evidently doesn't even know about the strong tradition of fictionalism in economics). My point here is to try and bridge the gap between Maklelan and his audience. It would seem that Maklelan rather than being condescending is assuming more of his audience than he should.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chippy's post
16-01-2014, 09:19 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 01:12 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  When are we gonna talk about the supposed golden tablets from Gawd Herself -- potentially absolute proof that she actually exists -- and why no one can look at them?

Could it be, perhaps, that no one gets to see them because they don't fucking exist at all?

Hobo

No, no, no! You see, the plates are no longer here becuase God saw fit to spirit them back off to Heaven lest anyone else have to rely upon evidence rather than faith! Didn't anyone ever tell you the story of the Babel Fish before?



Babel Fish

[Image: babelfish.jpg]

"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix."

It is a universal translator that neatly crosses the language divide between any species. The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore it both proves and disproves the existence of God:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.


Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.




It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:24 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 04:40 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 03:49 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Ok. Lets get this part out of the way. What part - in this entire book - is literal? Because whatever inaccurate parts or inconsistencies are brought to topic, your response is "oh thats not literal"

So lets address what is literal, so there can be no more doubleplay. What is literal in the BoM?

Don't know and don't care. It's relevant to me on a devotional level for what I get from it, not how historical any part of it is.


So you are a cherry-picking twat running on self-delusional selective beliefs about your chosen superstitious fairy tales.


Which means you have your own unique version of Moronism, and you do not speak for All, or even any ANY, other Morons.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:31 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Cathym, you are being blah blah blah....

Oh, look, Chippy is trying to pretend he's smarter and better than everyone else here again.

[Image: Smoking%2Bfish%2Bin%2Bturkey.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
16-01-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
You guys forgot the most important reason to reject Mormonism it's because Mitt Romney is a part of it
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BrokenQuill92's post
16-01-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 03:49 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Ok. Lets get this part out of the way. What part - in this entire book - is literal? Because whatever inaccurate parts or inconsistencies are brought to topic, your response is "oh thats not literal"

So lets address what is literal, so there can be no more doubleplay. What is literal in the BoM?

Look, in my opinion, this question has been answered more than once. From what I understand, and here Meklelan may correct me if necessary, he does not consider the Book of Mormon to be literally or historically true in any sense. He does not feel that this takes anything away from the theological and ethical issues addressed within it. Although he understands the nature of the dogma, it does not change his support of it. His personal convictions, and the reasons for them, are off limits on this forum, which I understand and am willing to respect.

This topic is becoming tedious. If their are any other questions like this, I hope we can get them out and answered right away, so we can move on to more interesting questions.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 06:03 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 10:36 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 03:49 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Ok. Lets get this part out of the way. What part - in this entire book - is literal? Because whatever inaccurate parts or inconsistencies are brought to topic, your response is "oh thats not literal"

So lets address what is literal, so there can be no more doubleplay. What is literal in the BoM?

Look, in my opinion, this question has been answered more than once. From what I understand, and here Meklelan may correct me if necessary, he does not consider the Book of Mormon to be literally or historically true in any sense. He does not feel that this takes anything away from the theological and ethical issues addressed within it. Although he understands the nature of the dogma, it does not change his support of it. His personal convictions, and the reasons for them, are off limits on this forum, which I understand and am willing to respect.

This topic is becoming tedious. If their are any other questions like this, I hope we can get them out and answered right away, so we can move on to more interesting questions.

My opinion is that whatever this guy is saying is getting smothered in his own arrogance. He comes to the table with a belief system that is hard to understand and does a terrible job of explaining himself. The literal, historical thing got me because I'm know my lds family takes it literal as well as probably everyone else in their congregation. It's what I was also taught.

But I digress.
What number are we on here...(making one up)

23. Ok, I was taught that women can not enter the highest levels of heaven without being sealed to a man. During your sealing you will each be given a password so that can find each other in heaven.


Also, Chippy you sounded like a pompous ass back there. Get over yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 06:40 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2014 07:00 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Cathym, you are being idiotic, self-referential and belligerent as usual. Your intended analogous examples are absurd: divination vs. murder and the biography of an eminent person as template for everyone else. Really? The silly shit that you do in your life doesn't have any special status--who cares how you decided as a jury member or how you decide who to employ? That you behaved in a particular way doesn't demonstrate that you didn't behave irrationally.

You haven't presented any evidence that Smith was convicted of any offence. Further, even if he was convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter"[1] it does not mean that he necessarily acted dishonestly. (Almost) Certainly no TV psychics have supernatural power; certainly some of them are knowingly being deceptive; but certainly some part of them sincerely believe they have psychic powers. I suspect that Smith was delusional in that way. His references to and uses of Masonic symbolism and ritual suggest that he did believe in "magic". I'm sure Maklelan will correct me if I am wrong: Smith was reputed to carry a Jupiter Talisman on his person. If he didn't believe in "magic" he would not carry such a thing.

EK, you appear to be trying to persuade Makelan to commit to something he doesn't believe in because you have some URLs prepared for the task. You unpacked your generic anti-Mormon hammer and you are determined to use it even if there are no nails to use it on. Maklelan even used the phrase "charter myth" but it seems his intended meaning is not being grasped.

I quote Glibert Ryle on this:

"A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them."[2]

If you respond, "but that's just a story" to one of Aesop's fables or to the myth of Sisyphus you have missed the point. Even if the BoM is 100% invention it does not entail that it is a worthless text. As a myth it can instruct on existential concerns (e.g. virtue, puprose). I am not endorsing it in that capacity any more than I am endorsing any other mythology as instructive, I am merely trying to redirect your gaze. Maklelan didn't invent this approach to scripture. I am uncertain who originated it but it is most often associated with Vaihinger and his huge tome (with a suitably long title) The Philosophy of 'As If': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind which defined the epistemological theory termed fictionalism. Fictionalism is a general epistemological theory, i.e. it does not pertain only to religious myth.

To pre-empt Cathym's likely philosophically illiterate response, Milton Friendman--who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics--published a seminal essay in 1953 named The Methodology of Positive Economics[3]--which I'm sure Cathym the economics genius hasn't read--that advocated fictionalism as the guiding epistemology for economic theorising. Just to clear here, Friedman's essay returns "About 1,210,000 results" on Google Scholar and Hausman describes it as "...the most influential work on economic methodology of this [the 20th-] century."[3]. So this isn't a loopy fringe idea. Friedman contended that an economic theory shouldn't have its value judged with reference to how "realistic" it was--he argued that realism was irrelevant and that theory should be judged in terms of usefulness and in economics that means (mainly) predictive power.

On a fictionalist account a religious myth too isn't to be judged on its factuality and historicity but rather in terms of its usefulness. A useful religious myth is one that provides such things as inspiration, social cohesion, moral guideance and a sense of purpose.

The broader question of the soundness of fictionalism as an epistemology is beyond the scope of this discussion (and beyond the competence of someone like Cathym that evidently doesn't even know about the strong tradition of fictionalism in economics). My point here is to try and bridge the gap between Maklelan and his audience. It would seem that Maklelan rather than being condescending is assuming more of his audience than he should.

Since I did my thesis paper on Friedman, I am well aware of his work. I'm not too sure where you got the idea that I mentioned economics at all or that this was Friedman's main driving point. Nay nay.

Second, you are once again getting your economic schooling from Wikipedia I see. Friedman didn't will the Nobel for "Friedman contended that an economic theory shouldn't have its value judged with reference to how "realistic" it was--he argued that realism was irrelevant and that theory should be judged in terms of usefulness and in economics...."

Friedman won the Nobel for his anti-Keynesian monetary theory, consumption anayslis and his demonstration of stabilization policies. But nice try, Darlin

My point, which you entirely overlooked, is that his run in with the law is material to his credibility for finding the plates and the ludicrous story of an angel and planets.

Also - you seem to think that "if he didn't mean it" that it's not breaking any laws. Or if you had no ill intents. You can belief wholeheartedly that you paid for an item. If you can't demonstrate that you did, You still get arrested for shoplifting. Or, alternatively, if you drink and get in your car, you have no intention or hurting anyone and believe that you are not drunk and fine to drive. You still go to jail for second degree murder if you do. To preempt YOU, so that you don't cause me of anything ethnocentric, since it happened in the US, I'm applying US jurisprudence.

Whether or not he carried te talisman because he actually believed in magic or because he was playing a part is irrelevant. Also, who said it had to be one or the other? So if he carried around a talisman and was superstitious it means he also didn't know it was bogus. It's not mutually exclusive.

I know lots of people that don't believe in god, yet are superstitious about football games. Ie, the same shirt must be worn in order for Notre dame to win.

Sometimes chip, when you try to look smart, you just look stupid.

It's also worth noting - mainly because it's really ironic - is that Friedman's teaching philosophy was that economics be accessible to everyone. Meaning, he felt that you didn't need to talk down to anyone to teach it. He felt that using superfluous vocubulary when discussing economic policy had the opposite effect of teaching and turned people off to listening. He felt that learning was had by participation and you couldn't participate if you felt that everyone was smarter than you.

Ironic, Chip, that you would try to teach about him in this way.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
17-01-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Cathym, you are being idiotic, self-referential and belligerent as usual. Your intended analogous examples are absurd: divination vs. murder and the biography of an eminent person as template for everyone else. Really? The silly shit that you do in your life doesn't have any special status--who cares how you decided as a jury member or how you decide who to employ? That you behaved in a particular way doesn't demonstrate that you didn't behave irrationally.

You haven't presented any evidence that Smith was convicted of any offence. Further, even if he was convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter"[1] it does not mean that he necessarily acted dishonestly. (Almost) Certainly no TV psychics have supernatural power; certainly some of them are knowingly being deceptive; but certainly some part of them sincerely believe they have psychic powers. I suspect that Smith was delusional in that way. His references to and uses of Masonic symbolism and ritual suggest that he did believe in "magic". I'm sure Maklelan will correct me if I am wrong: Smith was reputed to carry a Jupiter Talisman on his person. If he didn't believe in "magic" he would not carry such a thing.

EK, you appear to be trying to persuade Makelan to commit to something he doesn't believe in because you have some URLs prepared for the task. You unpacked your generic anti-Mormon hammer and you are determined to use it even if there are no nails to use it on. Maklelan even used the phrase "charter myth" but it seems his intended meaning is not being grasped.

I quote Glibert Ryle on this:

"A myth is, of course, not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts belonging in one category in the idioms appropriate to another. To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them."[2]

If you respond, "but that's just a story" to one of Aesop's fables or to the myth of Sisyphus you have missed the point. Even if the BoM is 100% invention it does not entail that it is a worthless text. As a myth it can instruct on existential concerns (e.g. virtue, puprose). I am not endorsing it in that capacity any more than I am endorsing any other mythology as instructive, I am merely trying to redirect your gaze. Maklelan didn't invent this approach to scripture. I am uncertain who originated it but it is most often associated with Vaihinger and his huge tome (with a suitably long title) The Philosophy of 'As If': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind which defined the epistemological theory termed fictionalism. Fictionalism is a general epistemological theory, i.e. it does not pertain only to religious myth.

To pre-empt Cathym's likely philosophically illiterate response, Milton Friendman--who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics--published a seminal essay in 1953 named The Methodology of Positive Economics[3]--which I'm sure Cathym the economics genius hasn't read--that advocated fictionalism as the guiding epistemology for economic theorising. Just to clear here, Friedman's essay returns "About 1,210,000 results" on Google Scholar and Hausman describes it as "...the most influential work on economic methodology of this [the 20th-] century."[3]. So this isn't a loopy fringe idea. Friedman contended that an economic theory shouldn't have its value judged with reference to how "realistic" it was--he argued that realism was irrelevant and that theory should be judged in terms of usefulness and in economics that means (mainly) predictive power.

On a fictionalist account a religious myth too isn't to be judged on its factuality and historicity but rather in terms of its usefulness. A useful religious myth is one that provides such things as inspiration, social cohesion, moral guideance and a sense of purpose.

The broader question of the soundness of fictionalism as an epistemology is beyond the scope of this discussion (and beyond the competence of someone like Cathym that evidently doesn't even know about the strong tradition of fictionalism in economics). My point here is to try and bridge the gap between Maklelan and his audience. It would seem that Maklelan rather than being condescending is assuming more of his audience than he should.


Fair enough, and you do make the point far better than Maklelan. If however there was a Church of Aesop dedicated to and built upon those mythic fables, I'd still question the purpose of the Church's existence (and anyone's allegiance to it) outside of it being a racket.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: