Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_Buffalo]

That's one interpretation of the data. But the fact remains that atheists are smarter than believers, on average.

Questionable Cause Fallacy.

Inability to understand the questionable cause fallacy fallacy.

[_Buffalo]

The only reason I brought up intelligence at all is because Simon seems to think that its meaningful that some members of the church are very bright.

Is Simon mistaken in stating that?

By that standard, atheism must be truer than theism.

It depends on what Simon meant. You seem to interpret Simon as saying that being a member of the church is the more intelligent choice--much as I interpreted what you were implying about atheists. I have a different take on Simon though. I think the fact that some bright people are members of the church implies that being a member of the church isn't such an obviously foolish decision. Despite SP's laundry list of problems, bright people remain. That doesn't mean that being a member is the more intelligent choice, just that it isn't necessarily an unintelligent decision. I believe that what Simon stated is meaningful in the right context.

I think far more meaningful, however, is the fact that we humans are so fallible--even the intelligent ones. Many smart people believe weird things as Micheal Shermer has written. While this is perhaps because of emotional attachment or something else, I would be cautious of being so certain that your position is right to the point that you have to demonize the other side as blinded by their emotions. After all, isn't that what they're doing to you when they say you're blinded by sin / whatever?

I think you're reading too much into what Simon was saying. I think all he meant was if Mormonism is a fraud, why is it able to fool smart people? My response is the smartest people tend not to believe in any gods at all.

[_Buffalo]

Fifth, the characterization of the issues in your list is sometimes strongly stilted. Number 3 is a good example. Calling the seer stone a "magic rock" colors the issue from the start. "Magic" is not a category of LDS belief, and increasingly it is not regarded by scholars as a useful category for such folk supernatural practices. I think you may find Steve Fleming's emerging work on this instructive.

In what way is "magic" a problematic term for a rock that gives the bearer the ability to find hidden treasure? Isn't the common term for this sort of thing "folk magic"?

For that matter, what is the real difference between magic and something like, say, the priesthood or the power of god? Don't they operate on the same principle?

[_Buffalo]

No, I am saying no such thing. I am admitting that I have a pre-conceived bias in its favor. What others need for accepting Mormonism I cannot say.

This sort of candor is refreshing. Thanks.

[_Buffalo]

Simon, you want to jump in and help the hapless stemelbow by bringing him up to speed on how his religious hero was a common, garden variety charlatan?

Frankly, I do not understand why you're getting so worked up over stemelbow's comments. How are they much different from mine?

But, in short, Joseph Smith was engaged in a profession that was common in his time and place. His family and he sincerely believed in the folk magic they practiced, as did many others including preachers, doctors, and laymen alike. You cannot damn him anymore than a future person could damn me when it is discovered, in the future, that the practice IT was a form of magic (many users, in fact, think it is magic).


And, DrW, by "bright" I meant "not dull or dimwitted." I was not referring to the actual "Brights" (capitalized).

Think, man.

Isn't folk magic condemned in the Bible? Was Joseph Smith a prophet of god or not?

[_sock puppet]

Sock Puppet,

If reasonableness and quality of thought are the criteria by which posts should be judged, I'm willing to have mine above pitted against your response any day. Let readers of good will and open minds compare them and see which comes out on top by these standards.

Cheers,

Don

Still unwilling to tackle the mountain of damning evidence head on? Well, that is to be expected. The better apologetic is and always has been to aim at the questioner and claim the questions are not fair.

[_Buffalo]

Good point, Asbestosman.

The thing I find interesting in Buffalo's statistics is the ratio of IQ to belief in God is not consistent and really in fact seems to be fairly coarsely parsed in both the article as well as in the study linked to subsequently. For example, Italy outranks the US in IQ, and has fewer people who say they do not believe in God. I've already pointed out that Japan clearly isn't even playing the same game we are in either category. As I see it, the use of these studies to make the point Buffalo is making shows Buffalo and co. do not understand correlation very well.

My opinion: a person who is highly intelligent isn't likely to rely on mythology to answer questions. Those myths may be "God was angry and caused a big flood to kill everyone" or "only dumb people believe in God". It doesn't really seem to matter what the myth is, they are more likely to understand the difference between what can be trusted when and for what.

Highly intelligent people DO tend to understand that there is nuance in most questions and over-generalizing is dangerous. I may not agree with EA, as a believer, but I think his presence in this thread shows how a more intelligent person is likely to behave compared to the wannabe's.

The correlation between high IQ and atheism is statistically significant. Statistics is not about absolutes, however, but rather generalities. There are plenty of highly intelligent believers.

[_Buffalo]

The question in the title of this thread has been answered. Yes, defenders are incorrigible. Sheesh, they can't admit they are wrong about anything, no matter how trivial or irrelevant.

Let's be fair though - I very rarely see anyone admit they were wrong about anything on message boards of all kinds.

[_Simon Belmont]

Isn't folk magic condemned in the Bible? Was Joseph Smith a prophet of god or not?

You're showing your ignorance again.

[_Simon Belmont]

The correlation between high IQ and atheism is statistically significant. Statistics is not about absolutes, however, but rather generalities. There are plenty of highly intelligent believers.

Atheism does not cause high I.Q., nor is it caused by high I.Q. Some people who have high I.Q.s are atheist, and some are religious. This is not statistically significant unless you can show me the P values.