Debate with a Mormon
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2012, 09:58 AM
Debate with a Mormon
Are there any ex Mormons out there. I'm currently in discussion with one on Yahoo Answers. I suggested that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman and that he was in fact charged and found guilty of fraud. Also, they claim that the "golden plates" were written in reformed Egyptian which, to my knowledge, there has never been such a language.

Any help greatly appreciated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 10:37 AM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 09:58 AM)Video3tech Wrote:  Are there any ex Mormons out there. I'm currently in discussion with one on Yahoo Answers. I suggested that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman and that he was in fact charged and found guilty of fraud. Also, they claim that the "golden plates" were written in reformed Egyptian which, to my knowledge, there has never been such a language.

Any help greatly appreciated.
You can debate with a Mormon? O_o

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
31-03-2012, 12:44 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
Try this:
http://www.exmormon.org

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2012, 01:06 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2012 09:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 09:58 AM)Video3tech Wrote:  Are there any ex Mormons out there. I'm currently in discussion with one on Yahoo Answers. I suggested that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman and that he was in fact charged and found guilty of fraud. Also, they claim that the "golden plates" were written in reformed Egyptian which, to my knowledge, there has never been such a language.

Any help greatly appreciated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE , re "reformed Egyptian", The Lost Book of Abraham, and all the other nonsense. Kinda long, but award winning documentary. So much for the historical question.

re the theological questions : the question of whether or not a group stands inside or outside the Judeo-Christian tradition is not so much about whether they accept this or that, as it is about the PROCESS involved. Judeo-Christianities DEVELOPED from a long and complex culturally based process, (almost) always associated with communities of worshipers, which were the ultimate arbiter, (by inclusion or not into their liturgical celebrations), of the texts which they accepted as the authentic experience of that community, (and those that were found wanting were considered "heretical" or simply not used in the celebrations), (thus were left out, eventually, from their canon)). The problem with the group in question, is that "it" was concocted by one uneducated man, not an organic evolution/eruption from a community of believers, as almost all other sects were. The PROCESS is flawed, and thus historically, (by being inconsistent with the traditional process), can be judged to be historically "unchristian" and "unbiblical". For one man, in his cultural (and educational) vacuum, to stand up and make up things and declare them as authentic is not consistent with the known and accepted Judeo-Christian community's validation process, and it's one of the reasons he got so far off the mark. He seemed to be unaware of this actual process, even though some of the centers of biblical form and literary criticism, (especially in Austria-Germany (ie Tubingen University)) HAD begun to be aware of the historical, (archeologically validated) processes, (and eventually at Harvard and Yale and Princeton, and I'm sure other places I don't know about), by the time Smith was doing his thing.

There never has been a language known as "reformed" Egyptian. (NO archaeologist agrees with that fallacious claim). The Rosetta Stone, (which unlocked hieroglyphics in the early Nineteenth Century) was discovered by the French, and the knowledge of that discovery had not made it's way to the US yet, when Smith was cooking up his stuff.

Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-03-2012, 07:22 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 09:58 AM)Video3tech Wrote:  Are there any ex Mormons out there. I'm currently in discussion with one on Yahoo Answers. I suggested that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman and that he was in fact charged and found guilty of fraud. Also, they claim that the "golden plates" were written in reformed Egyptian which, to my knowledge, there has never been such a language.

Any help greatly appreciated.
Yeah, I've got a suggestion --- don't bother with that argument. It commits the genetic fallacy. It's not as if you're wrong, it's just that even if you prove your point then you still won't be convincing to a rational person, and probably not convincing to an irrational person, either.

If it helps, I would suggest reading the Skeptics' Annotated Book of Mormon (yes, all of it) to challenge his/her faith. Or better yet, I just wouldn't bother with anything specific against their belief and instead argue for the position of rational skepticism that we put forward to all theists. There is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false (along with many other pieces of strong evidence) but it is unlikely to persuade someone who feels that the evidence "tests" their faith. Or ignore me and see where that gets you. I'd love it if you proved me wrong on this one.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
31-03-2012, 11:05 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 07:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 09:58 AM)Video3tech Wrote:  Are there any ex Mormons out there. I'm currently in discussion with one on Yahoo Answers. I suggested that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman and that he was in fact charged and found guilty of fraud. Also, they claim that the "golden plates" were written in reformed Egyptian which, to my knowledge, there has never been such a language.

Any help greatly appreciated.
Yeah, I've got a suggestion --- don't bother with that argument. It commits the genetic fallacy. It's not as if you're wrong, it's just that even if you prove your point then you still won't be convincing to a rational person, and probably not convincing to an irrational person, either.

If it helps, I would suggest reading the Skeptics' Annotated Book of Mormon (yes, all of it) to challenge his/her faith. Or better yet, I just wouldn't bother with anything specific against their belief and instead argue for the position of rational skepticism that we put forward to all theists. There is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false (along with many other pieces of strong evidence) but it is unlikely to persuade someone who feels that the evidence "tests" their faith. Or ignore me and see where that gets you. I'd love it if you proved me wrong on this one.
Its not a genetic fallacy. The fact that the creator of the religion was a well known fraud seems extremely relevant.
After all religion itself, no matter the package, is itself just a fraud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mysticjbyrd's post
02-04-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 11:05 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 07:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yeah, I've got a suggestion --- don't bother with that argument. It commits the genetic fallacy. It's not as if you're wrong, it's just that even if you prove your point then you still won't be convincing to a rational person, and probably not convincing to an irrational person, either.

If it helps, I would suggest reading the Skeptics' Annotated Book of Mormon (yes, all of it) to challenge his/her faith. Or better yet, I just wouldn't bother with anything specific against their belief and instead argue for the position of rational skepticism that we put forward to all theists. There is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false (along with many other pieces of strong evidence) but it is unlikely to persuade someone who feels that the evidence "tests" their faith. Or ignore me and see where that gets you. I'd love it if you proved me wrong on this one.
Its not a genetic fallacy. The fact that the creator of the religion was a well known fraud seems extremely relevant.
After all religion itself, no matter the package, is itself just a fraud.
No, it really doesn't matter. To use the old cliche that I've used so many times, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day". A fraudulent person can tell the truth and a generally truthful person can lie.

I like logic puzzles where you are given two people --- a knight and a knave. The knight always tells the truth and the knave always lies, and by their statements you have to figure out which is which. Real life doesn't work that way, despite the fact that many fundamentalists want life to be that easy. Remember the tale about the boy who cried wolf? In the end of the story, his sheep got eaten because even though he was branded a liar that still didn't necessarily mean that he couldn't be telling the truth!

Your belief that religion itself is a fraud is unfounded. Even if a person believes in a religion, that means that he or she believes that their are countless frauds out there (all the religions he or she doesn't believe in), but that simply proves that it is probable that a religion could be a fraud, not that all religions are frauds. Your statement commits the fallacy of composition.

I agree with you that Joseph Smith was found committing fraud, and that means he probably committed fraud again when founding his church... but it still doesn't prove it. It's not as if, after being found guilty of committing fraud, that everything he did or said was fraudulent... it doesn't follow logically. I'm trying to get you to use critical thinking --- thinking in which you self-criticize and self-police your own ideas. I didn't make up the genetic fallacy, and I've explained the reason why it exists. Try to avoid logical fallacies in your argument, because logical arguments against the Mormon church do exist... you'll just have to work harder to find them.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2012, 11:05 AM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(31-03-2012 11:05 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 07:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yeah, I've got a suggestion --- don't bother with that argument. It commits the genetic fallacy. It's not as if you're wrong, it's just that even if you prove your point then you still won't be convincing to a rational person, and probably not convincing to an irrational person, either.

If it helps, I would suggest reading the Skeptics' Annotated Book of Mormon (yes, all of it) to challenge his/her faith. Or better yet, I just wouldn't bother with anything specific against their belief and instead argue for the position of rational skepticism that we put forward to all theists. There is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false (along with many other pieces of strong evidence) but it is unlikely to persuade someone who feels that the evidence "tests" their faith. Or ignore me and see where that gets you. I'd love it if you proved me wrong on this one.
Its not a genetic fallacy. The fact that the creator of the religion was a well known fraud seems extremely relevant.
After all religion itself, no matter the package, is itself just a fraud.
L. Ron Hubbard himself was quoted as saying the best way to get rich is to create your own religion. How is this not viewed as relevant to anyone considering Scientology? I just don't get it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
This is a great site. Shows the critics arguments and the apologists as well.

http://www.mormonthink.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 02:57 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
Wait until he asks you to describe the taste of salt. Rolleyes

You can answer with descriptions of what it tastes like in your eyeball, or an open wound. Worship Slaves

"But with a little thought, we can describe the taste of salt. It is biting, puckery, savory, zesty, piquant."

http://www.exmormon.org.uk/tol_arch/atozelph/salt.htm

Such a great site! Thumbsup

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Quidsane's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: