The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_canpakes]

The LDS position is that God exists.

I believe that there's quite the list of additional 'positions'.

[_Gadianton]

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2005/06/w ... n-atheist/

Stemelbow likes this Shermer prooftext because he thinks Shermer admits the evidence for and against God are matched, leaving open the wild card of faith to take the pot.

Using Shermer's reasoning, no one can disprove the existence of Bigfoot or a pending alien invasion, therefore, faith tips the balance in favor of believing in whatever. And this is very much to the point given Shermer considers himself a "skeptic", writing on a broad range of folklore and fringe ideas with religion and God mixed in with everything else. It's unlikely he would consider any of these matters, including the existence of God, a stalemate. Shermer wants to shape the discussion to where the skeptic sits backs, waits for the bubbles to float by and then pop them rather than get riled up and head for the forest to prove there is no bigfoot.

I can see why Shermer wants to argue the way he does but it's not for me. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that the disbelief content of Shermer's brain and the disbelief content of EA's brain are probably very similar and from there, it's a matter of semantics. Shermer's semantics happen to invite the Stemelbow's of the world to (wrongfully) see their world of magic bolstered.

[_cafe crema]

That's why I'm agnostic.

You and Shermer both. But, ironically, you still find yourself in the "critic" camp claiming the Church is not true, rather than a more agnostic position of "the Church could be true but I personally doubt it", or so it seems.

Wouldn't a more agnostic position be, does a true church exist, is it even necessary?

[_Droopy]

I know, right? I spend many a night wishing I was more like you, all logical and factual and such. My pillow has spend many a night soaked in Droopy-induced tears.

I knew I had secret admirers somewhere. Now, if only they'd send me money so I could become a radio talk show host and do this for a living.

[_stemelbow]

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

What you just said is what agnostic as defined as. The word atheist is used today to describe one who does not believe in God--not one who thinks its possible there is a God. I think you should read Shermer's book. Anyway, my whole point here is to describe how the very well articulated position of Shermer also seems to be a pertinent analogy of how discussion goes here.

Church leadership have long said that the church stands or falls on the Book of Mormon. Deutero-Isaiah on the brass plates has the same effect as would be Beatles lyrics on the brass plates - it's an anachronism so large and startling that it discredits the document completely.

There are far too many possibilities in this that you are not considering. Who knows if Joseph Smith was inspired to think the deutero Isaiah parts ought to be included? Its God's work. If He decides to use deutero Isaiah to describe the messages that the Nephites relied on in their brass plates then its his decision, for instance. Or perhaps Joseph Smith got lazy at a few points and copied, essentially parts of the Bible but the rest was some pretty good translation of the original nephite record? Or perhaps Deutero Isaiah is based off a manuscript the pre-existed it. In other words, what you claim as proof really isn't proof. You should read Shermer's book though. He covers this stuff too.

[_stemelbow]

Hey there, shtem (I've decided to habitually misspell your name too, because it's fun, right?) I have nothing against you, personally.

Let's see if you can read the following and actually understand it. Concentrate now, because this is your chance to prove you can read above a 4th grade level:

If I say, "I don't know if there's a god, but I don't think there is based on a lack of evidence," I am not obligated to prove anything (unless you want me to somehow prove I don't know).

Now, what is it about that last statement you fail to understand?

Then your quibble is with the expert Shermer and not me, Schmo. You seem to be suggesting agosticism is atheism. If your position is really an agnostic, then no big deal here.

[_Equality]

The word atheist is used today to describe one who does not believe in God--not one who thinks its possible there is a God.

This is a descriptivist, not prescriptivist view of a word definition and does, I think, sum up what Shermer's problem is with the word "atheist." It's not that "atheist" does not or can not be defined as "one who disbelieves in a god"; it's that in the most common usage, it means "one who actively denies that there is a god" or "one who believes there cannot be a god." But most of the people on this board who would use the word atheist to describe themselves are not using the most common usage but instead use the meaning of "one who does not believe that there is a god but is open to the possibility that there might be a god if any evidence is ever forthcoming." That is, we share Shermer's position even if we are not as reticent about using the term "atheist." You seem to be incapable of understanding that words often have more than one meaning. And when people tell you what they mean when they use a word, you insist on acting as if they are using the word in a way that they clearly are not.

Who knows if Joseph Smith was inspired to think the deutero Isaiah parts ought to be included? Its God's work. If He decides to use deutero Isaiah to describe the messages that the Nephites relied on in their brass plates then its his decision, for instance. Or perhaps Joseph Smith got lazy at a few points and copied, essentially parts of the Bible but the rest was some pretty good translation of the original Nephite record?

If any of those possibilities were true, it would mean the Book of Mormon is not what the church has claimed it is for the last 170 years. You are, in typical mopologetic fashion, moving the goalposts again. Yes, anything is possible if by "possible" you simply invoke an ad hoc miracle rationalization. It's possible the Flying Spaghetti Monster took deutero-Isaiah when it was written in Palestine and with his noodly appendage deposited those writings onto the Brass Plates using a time machine and magical marinara sauce etched the words in Reformed Egyptian into the metal so that Nephi could include them in the record that Joseph Smith would, millennia later, translate with his rock-in-hat trick. You can't prove it didn't happen that way, so it's possible it did. Of course, it's also possible that you are a raving idiot (I'm not saying you are, just that there is very little evidence to disprove the proposition).

[_brade]

There are far too many possibilities in this that you are not considering. Who knows if Joseph Smith was inspired to think the deutero Isaiah parts ought to be included? Its God's work. If He decides to use deutero Isaiah to describe the messages that the Nephites relied on in their brass plates then its his decision, for instance. Or perhaps Joseph Smith got lazy at a few points and copied, essentially parts of the Bible but the rest was some pretty good translation of the original Nephite record? Or perhaps Deutero Isaiah is based off a manuscript the pre-existed it. In other words, what you claim as proof really isn't proof. You should read Shermer's book though. He covers this stuff too.

Stem, I'm happy to grant that lots of critics use language like "The deutero Isaiah issue is proof that the church is false". The point myself and others are trying to make here is that lots of critics would not, and in fact, do not endorse that claim. I think the deutero Isaiah stuff is problematic. And I think it weighs against the Church's claims. I do not think it proves the church false. You're essentially engaged in attacking the weakest critical arguments - arguments I think serious critics don't endorse.

[_Some Schmo]

Then your quibble is with the expert Shermer and not me, Schmo.

Nope, I agree with Shermer. Of course, I actually understand what he's saying, so that's why you're confused and mistaken.

You seem to be suggesting agosticism is atheism.

No, I'm suggesting that while you seem to be able to read words, actually understanding the meaning behind them is the more challenging task for you.

If your position is really an agnostic, then no big deal here.

My position is as agnostic as yours is (which is to say, yeah... somewhat).

[_stemelbow]

Since I rarely understand what you are saying I would like to paraphrase what I am getting from your message and you can tell me if I am correct or not. I will not be surprised if I am incorrect.

What you are saying is that atheists who claim to "know" there is no god have to prove it and since that is not possible they cannot have a legit critique of the LDS church.

no. Atheism holds the position that there is no God. This can be akin to a believer who holds the position that there is a God. That was Shermer's point. If you claim atheism then you are obligated to prove your position. Why? Because atheists premise is there true religion because religion can't be verified.

Members of the LDS church claim to "know" there is a god which they cannot prove, but that is okay because they really are taking it on faith alone. Because of this they do not have to prove anything.

Not exactly.

It is up to the critic to prove their position because they are the one who does not use faith.

Is this what you are saying?

not really. I am saying as per the discussion here. If you hold the position of critic--that is the Church is untrue, then you must prove that. As per Buffalo such proof is in the propisition that Deutero Isaiah is found int eh Book of Mormon. I don’t even see how that is proof of much of anything. It poses some interesting questions, sure, but proof? Not even close. In my mind his attempt to prove his claim is utter fail. He can’t support his position just as I can’t prove there is a God. But, unfortunately for him, his whole premise rests on the proposition of what he can prove. He must prove his claims because proof is all he has. He lacks the claim to faith (although he does rely on faith, he just doesn’t know it or recognize it).

Hope that helps. If not, we can try some more.