The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_Calculus Crusader]

If you believe in the transparent fraud that is Mormonism then, yes, absolutely.

Would you mind supporting this "transparent fraud" assertion?

Follow my posts.

You haven't said anything particularly insightful or even logically sound yet

Your judgment is noted and discarded.

...so I find it difficult to accept that I'm a dupe despite being far more informed about this argument (and Mormonism in general), as well as far more objective about the evidence.

Pull the other leg. I simply pointed out the inscription's deficiency as "evidence."

Incidentally, the dupe who realizes he has been duped ceases being a dupe.

[_Sethbag]

If you believe in the transparent fraud that is Mormonism then, yes, absolutely.

Would you mind supporting this "transparent fraud" assertion? You haven't said anything particularly insightful or even logically sound yet, so I find it difficult to accept that I'm a dupe despite being far more informed about this argument (and Mormonism in general), as well as far more objective about the evidence.

You're a smart guy, and smart people usually have this thing about believing that they're seeing things clearly, and being rational. What's funny is how often this is not true.

You're a smart guy. Daniel Peterson is a smart guy. Probably most of the main apologists are smart guys. The Dude is a smart guy. Analytics is a smart guy. Calculus Crusader is a smart guy. There are plenty of others, but the point is made. And yet, in a room containing all of these people, at least some of them are flat-out dead wrong. If the church is true, then it's the Dude, Analytics, Calculus Crusader, and the rest of us. If the church isn't true, then it's you, Daniel, Hamblin, and the rest.

But none of us thinks were the ones who are wrong. Why should we? Do the JWs who knock on your door ever think they're wrong? No, and yet they are, and pretty obviously so. Is Tom Cruise wrong about the Emperor Xenu having caused all our problems by exploding H-bombs over billions of people and then using their captured souls to torment the rest of us? Yes, absolutely wrong, and yet he doesn't think so.

I think you're wrong about the church, and pretty obviously so. It's not obvious to you, of course, but that's pretty much par for the course with religious believers. There are billions of people on Earth who hold religious beliefs and yet are wrong about at least some, if not all of them, and yet most of those people would say they've got it right. Apparently it's a very human thing to hold strong beliefs, be wrong about it, and not be able to see and recognize it. It's so easy that I'd argue that at least 99% of religious believers fall into this trap, and I personally believe it's 100% - but 99% makes my point.

So yes, you are a dupe about Mormonism. That doesn't mean you aren't also a very smart person. I think the main problem is that you've accepted a faulty epistemology. When the method you have accepted for recognizing and learning Truth gives spurious results, well, you're going to be off on some things that you believe, aren't you? That, and you're smart enough that, when confronted with evidence that ought to show that your religious beliefs are misplaced, you're able to "think around" the problem.

Anyhow, how do you explain the very many smart people who have left the church after coming to the conclusion that it's not really true after all? How do you rationalize that? I get to blame the concept of the mind virus and memes and whatnot, ie: the power of ideas to capture peoples' attention, and get themselves replicated, defended, etc. Do you think we smart people who have left are just caught up in some negative meme? Or do you buy into the idea that there's this invisible man out there in the universe that goes around trying to convince people to commit evil deeds, and who is constantly whispering lies in peoples' ears, so that if they don't perform the relevant mantras regularly enough, this invisible evil man clouds peoples' minds so they forget the truth?

Seriously, I'm curious. Are we all just dupes of Satan? What do you think? Is the church really true but we can't see that anymore because we stopped bearing testimony, paying tithing, and reading the bronze-age goatherder mythology?

[_Morrissey]

So evidence can be dismissed without evaluation if we find the conclusion it supports unlikely?

Depends. If the evidence, for example, is used to support the conclusion that aliens routinely abduct people and probe their backsides with metal rods, then, yes. Or, if the evidence is used to support the conclusion that a large, lost civilization existed in pre-Columbian MesoAmerica that worshiped Jesus, rode horses, traveled in chariots, fought with steel swords, etc., then, again, yes.

A single piece of 'evidence,' moreover, cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of all other evidence, both pro and contrary.

People who believe in all sorts of stupid stuff find all sorts of 'evidence' to support it. That does not, however, make it good evidence.

Parsimony is how you develop more likely hypotheses, which must then be tested. Parsimony is not how you decide whether evidence is valid or not. It certainly can't be called upon to determine whether evidence needs to be engaged or not.

Wrong. Parsimony can be used for either purpose. Explanations that are complex, convoluted, and require multiple complex, convoluted sub-arguments to support (as is the case with Mormon apologetics) are, I think most people would concede, rightly subjected to an additional measure of skepticism.

And this is particularly the case when un-parsimonious explanations are used to support fantastical and/or supernatural claims.

[_Morrissey]

No, it's at best a lucky hit. Not too dissimilar from the case where I might be thinking about someone at the very second she calls.

That's a ridiculous comparison to make.

No, it's an apt comparison. It goes to the issue of lucky hits vs. systematically getting it right. You want to use one single instance in which a geographical site in the Book of Mormon appears to find independent corroboration as evidence of the book's veracity, all the while ignoring the multiple cases in which the Book of Mormon got it wrong. You are inappropriately ripping this one piece of 'evidence' out of context

This is particularly the case when random 'hits' are to be expected now and then, as they often time are. Even alien abduction enthusiasts, I am sure, can point to 'hits' now and then, but taken into the totality of evidence, the hits are not very persuasive.

Kind of like the numerous other geographical references in the Book of Mormon for which there has been no independent and unbiased verification. What's Joseph's hit rate? Not too good, it turns out.

And the lack of evidence for one toponym has absolutely whatsoever to do with the validity of another. You seem unaware of the phenomenon known as the accident of preservation.

Yes it very much does. Again, one cannot consider evidence in isolation. One hit among no misses, 10 hits among 3 misses, etc. can provide powerful evidence of veracity taking all into account. On the other hand, one hit among dozens of misses strongly suggests that the one hit is more likely explained by other factors.

Jeanne Dixon is a psychic who presumably predicted John Kennedy's assassination. (Actually, she did not, but let's assume she did, as many people believe so.) She has gone on to predict many other events, with a horrendous success rate. Yet, many people point to the one she presumably got right and take it as evidence of psychic power. Perhaps arguing that the lack of evidence of pyschic ability in other cases has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of her claim to be a psychic.

Yet, even if one concedes she got it right in the one case, the many, many other times she got it wrong is persuasive systematic evidence of a lack of psychic powers. What the more plausible conclusion: that she is a psychic based on the one hit, despite the many, many other misses, or that she just got lucky the one time?

I would argue it is the latter. Your reasoning implies that the former is the better conclusion.

Joseph Smith did, however, have a habit of borrowing words and inserting them in full form or in altered from into his narratives.

Or so you conclude based on words filling a spectrum of comparability to biblical words that you have a priori decided cannot come from actual historiography.

Given all the highly implausible, a-historical, fantastical, and supernatural claims one would then be obliged to accept, yes, I do conclude thus.

There is ample evidence that Joseph Smith borrowed liberally from his religious, cultural, social, and geographical milieu, and NO evidence of a large, lost pre-Columbian MesoAmerican civilization that rode horses, drove wheeled chariots, fought with steel swords, worshiped Jesus Christ, etc. The former, therefore, strikes me as both a far more parsimonious and plausible explanation.

Borrowing and altering the word Nahum, with which he would have been familiar, and achieving one lucky hit (in the midst of dozens if not into the hundreds of misses), is a far more parsimonious and plausible explanation than the Book of Mormon is an actual ancient record of a lost civilization, and all the implausible baggage that drags in its train.

First, you're creating a conjunction fallacy by adding details to the general conclusion that naturally make it less probable than a single very general conclusion (A is more probable than B in conjunction with B1 in conjunction with B2, etc.).

Accepting the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon clearly obligates one to accept a number of other highly fantastical, supernatural, and implausible conclusions.

To turn the tables I could say that it's more parsimonious that the Book of Mormon is true (very general) than that Joseph Smith borrowed a name that happens to parallel a toponym from Arabia that also matches the time period of the Book of Mormon, as well as the location of Lehi's party and the utility of the locale. On top of that, the two candidates for Bountiful lie almost exactly where the Book of Mormon puts it in geographical relation to Nahom.

Yes, you could try this, but you'd look silly doing it. Opting for supernatural explanations may be more parsimonious, but it is certainly not more plausible.

Even then, your explanation is still less parsimonious than saying that Joseph Smith borrowed and adapted a word known to him.

You also have to add the "implausible baggage" about eleven witnesses all lying together and maintaining that lie even after becoming hostile to the church, and the numerous Hebrew literary techniques in the book that were completely anomalous to the 19th century, and the etc., etc.

I don't find the prospect that 11 individuals engaged in a conspiracy to lie implausible at all. I think we can find innumerable examples in which individuals have entered into and adhered to all sorts of conspiracies, criminal or otherwise. I think this a far, far more plausible explanation than an ancient prophet in a large, lost pre-Columbian civilization that worshiped Jesus, rode horses, traveled in Chariots, fought with steel swords, etc. wrote a record of its history on plates of gold, appeared as an angel to Joseph Smith, etc., etc.. I mean really, people lie, all the time, and under all sorts of conditions. This is amply documented.

Angels appearing and leading young men to buried golden plates documenting the history of large, lost pre-Columbian civilization that worshiped Jesus, rode horses, traveled in Chariots, fought with steel swords, etc., not so much.

Hopefully you see how you're lack of familiarity with statistics, the law of parsimony, and logical fallacies has simply misled your amateur assessment of this issue. Don't let that get in the way of your impotent posturing, though.

Wow, that's quite a conclusion. I don't see how you've demonstrated any of the above to any degree whatsoever.

It is you, my friend, who is impotently posturing. But, if you think me wrong, take your NHM evidence to unbiased, non-Mormon who possess what you believe are adequate skills in statistics, parsimony, and logical fallacies. What do you believe the odds are that they'll buy into your arguments?

I think we all know the answer to this question.

But then, that's not surprising. After all, only one of us believes in angels with flaming swords .

[_Morrissey]

Are you calling me a dupe?

Yup.

[_Morrissey]

I didn't say it "need be," but the parallels certainly make the connection plausible. It merits consideration, which you refuse to give.

If Scientology could identify a parallel supporting its story of Xenu et al, would you give it your consideration?

Maklelan wants us to give parallels to the Book of Mormon our serious consideration. Yet many other beliefs religious, otherwise superstitious, conspiratorial, etc. can also point to 'parallels' or similar evidence put forward by Maklelan and other Mormon apologists. They demand of us that we treat their evidence seriously, but one cannot help but wonder whether they in turn take this other evidence seriously. (I think we all know the answer to this.)

In other words, of all the religious, superstitious, conspiratorial, etc. beliefs out there, they want to privilege Mormonism above all the others where it comes to demanding serious consideration of evidence. Why? Well because it's what they believe, what they really, really want to believe, so it really, really, really must be truer than Scientology and all the rest. What they don't see is that to the rest of us, Mormonism is no more plausible in its claims than Scientology, alien abductions, Jehovah Witness, etc., etc. and thus no more demanding of serious consideration or the suspension of credulity.

[_maklelan]

You're a smart guy, and smart people usually have this thing about believing that they're seeing things clearly, and being rational. What's funny is how often this is not true.

Except when it's you, right?

You're a smart guy. Daniel Peterson is a smart guy. Probably most of the main apologists are smart guys. The Dude is a smart guy. Analytics is a smart guy. Calculus Crusader is a smart guy. There are plenty of others, but the point is made. And yet, in a room containing all of these people, at least some of them are flat-out dead wrong. If the church is true, then it's the Dude, Analytics, Calculus Crusader, and the rest of us. If the church isn't true, then it's you, Daniel, Hamblin, and the rest.

But none of us thinks were the ones who are wrong. Why should we? Do the JWs who knock on your door ever think they're wrong? No, and yet they are, and pretty obviously so. Is Tom Cruise wrong about the Emperor Xenu having caused all our problems by exploding H-bombs over billions of people and then using their captured souls to torment the rest of us? Yes, absolutely wrong, and yet he doesn't think so.

I think you're wrong about the church, and pretty obviously so. It's not obvious to you, of course, but that's pretty much par for the course with religious believers. There are billions of people on Earth who hold religious beliefs and yet are wrong about at least some, if not all of them, and yet most of those people would say they've got it right. Apparently it's a very human thing to hold strong beliefs, be wrong about it, and not be able to see and recognize it. It's so easy that I'd argue that at least 99% of religious believers fall into this trap, and I personally believe it's 100% - but 99% makes my point.

So yes, you are a dupe about Mormonism.

As far as the people who think I'm wrong are concerned. Since we've established that I'm only a dupe inside those heads, I couldn't really care less.

That doesn't mean you aren't also a very smart person. I think the main problem is that you've accepted a faulty epistemology. When the method you have accepted for recognizing and learning Truth gives spurious results, well, you're going to be off on some things that you believe, aren't you?

And since there have been no objective scientific experiments to support this assertion, we're back to making bald assertion based on subjective assumptions. That's fine for your own personal beliefs, but irrelevant for mine.

That, and you're smart enough that, when confronted with evidence that ought to show that your religious beliefs are misplaced, you're able to "think around" the problem.

Anyhow, how do you explain the very many smart people who have left the church after coming to the conclusion that it's not really true after all?

A testimony is not based on intelligence. It's based on inspiration and revelation, and everyone's got an equal shot at that.

How do you rationalize that? I get to blame the concept of the mind virus and memes and whatnot, ie: the power of ideas to capture peoples' attention, and get themselves replicated, defended, etc. Do you think we smart people who have left are just caught up in some negative meme? Or do you buy into the idea that there's this invisible man out there in the universe that goes around trying to convince people to commit evil deeds, and who is constantly whispering lies in peoples' ears, so that if they don't perform the relevant mantras regularly enough, this invisible evil man clouds peoples' minds so they forget the truth?

I think it's more negligence with seeking the spirit, followed by the prioritization of your own subjective perspective, which is more the responsibility of the individual.

Seriously, I'm curious. Are we all just dupes of Satan? What do you think? Is the church really true but we can't see that anymore because we stopped bearing testimony, paying tithing, and reading the bronze-age goatherder mythology?

See above.

[_maklelan]

No, it's an apt comparison. It goes to the issue of lucky hits vs. systematically getting it right. You want to use one single instance in which a geographical site in the Book of Mormon appears to find independent corroboration as evidence of the book's veracity, all the while ignoring the multiple cases in which the Book of Mormon got it wrong.

Not having historical verification doesn't mean the Book of Mormon "got it wrong." The anachronistic elements are very easily ascribed to the context of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

You are inappropriately ripping this one piece of 'evidence' out of context

Utterly ludicrous statement.

This is particularly the case when random 'hits' are to be expected now and then, as they often time are. Even alien abduction enthusiasts, I am sure, can point to 'hits' now and then, but taken into the totality of evidence, the hits are not very persuasive.

Yes it very much does. Again, one cannot consider evidence in isolation.

And one cannot use context to invalidate evidence a priori. You're obviously not well aware of historiographical evidentiary standards, and I'm not wasting my time explaining them when you're going to respond with "Nu-uh!" every time.

[_maklelan]

If Scientology could identify a parallel supporting its story of Xenu et al, would you give it your consideration?

I give all evidence consideration.

Maklelan wants us to give parallels to the Book of Mormon our serious consideration. Yet many other beliefs religious, otherwise superstitious, conspiratorial, etc. can also point to 'parallels' or similar evidence put forward by Maklelan and other Mormon apologists. They demand of us that we treat their evidence seriously, but one cannot help but wonder whether they in turn take this other evidence seriously. (I think we all know the answer to this.)

I've taken the evidence for several religions seriously for years. You don't know jack about me, so keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself.

In other words, of all the religious, superstitious, conspiratorial, etc. beliefs out there, they want to privilege Mormonism above all the others where it comes to demanding serious consideration of evidence. Why? Well because it's what they believe, what they really, really want to believe, so it really, really, really must be truer than Scientology and all the rest. What they don't see is that to the rest of us, Mormonism is no more plausible in its claims than Scientology, alien abductions, Jehovah Witness, etc., etc. and thus no more demanding of serious consideration or the suspension of credulity.

See above.

[Guest]

Duplicate Post