What does it feel like to be wrong about your religion?

[_Scottie]

No, Nehor, you cannot KNOW you're right. The fact that you think so shows how pompous you are.

Uncalled for and untrue. Maybe you really can't know about supernatural things as we consider the word "know," but he's Mormon and he has a belief system. That belief and knowledge is offered to every person that walks the earth equally. If you don't agree, that's your right, but he has every right to think you're wrong. There is nothing "pompous" in disagreeing or drawing a different conclusion based on the same set of facts. You seem pretty certain in your own conclusions. How are you any less pompous?

It almost sounds like you're trying to bully him into adopting your own line of reasoning with these accusations rather than sticking to the issue.

To claim to KNOW something that is unknowable is, indeed, pompous. I say the same thing to critic who claim to KNOW that the church is false. They may strongly believe this way, but they don't KNOW.

Nobody can know something that is unprovable.

I disagree. Judging the veracity of LDS truth claims is possible given the extensive access we have to information about people and events surrounding its founding and early history.

Keep in mind also that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims, as well as natural claims (e.g., types of plants and animals) that can be directly tested against a mountain of knowledge about the history, plants, and animals of the relevant time period.

The PofGP claims to be a translation of an ancient text which has been indisputably proven to be something different than what the PofGP claims it to be.

More, I don't think it's arrogant of me to say I KNOW that David Koresh was not who he claimed to be, or that Scientology is a crock of crap. Likewise, it's not arrogant to day I KNOW that Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be, or that Mormonism is a crock of crap.

I can't KNOW that God does not exist, but I can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a lying douche bag.

I KNOW this, not because of any feeling I have or faith (or lack of faith), but because the EVIDENCE to this effect is overwhelming.

Well, Guy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although it appears highly, HIGHLY likely that Joseph Smith and David Koresh were frauds, and that Scientology is a crock of crap, you can not KNOW it. For every evidence that is presented, there is a barely plausible response to it. in my opinion, more often than not, they are highly unlikely, but unlikely does not equate to absolutely wrong. There is a slim chance that they have actually gotten it correct and that the Book of Mormon is actually true. Or Scientology is correct, or DK was right.

Evidence is just that...evidence. It's not proof. Without proof, we can't KNOW anything. Evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. Some people interpret NHM as solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and can't fathom how we can't see it.

[_guy sajer]

I disagree. Judging the veracity of LDS truth claims is possible given the extensive access we have to information about people and events surrounding its founding and early history.

Keep in mind also that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims, as well as natural claims (e.g., types of plants and animals) that can be directly tested against a mountain of knowledge about the history, plants, and animals of the relevant time period.

The PofGP claims to be a translation of an ancient text which has been indisputably proven to be something different than what the PofGP claims it to be.

More, I don't think it's arrogant of me to say I KNOW that David Koresh was not who he claimed to be, or that Scientology is a crock of crap. Likewise, it's not arrogant to day I KNOW that Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be, or that Mormonism is a crock of crap.

I can't KNOW that God does not exist, but I can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a lying douche bag.

I KNOW this, not because of any feeling I have or faith (or lack of faith), but because the EVIDENCE to this effect is overwhelming.

Well, Guy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although it appears highly, HIGHLY likely that Joseph Smith and David Koresh were frauds, and that Scientology is a crock of crap, you can not KNOW it. For every evidence that is presented, there is a barely plausible response to it. in my opinion, more often than not, they are highly unlikely, but unlikely does not equate to absolutely wrong. There is a slim chance that they have actually gotten it correct and that the Book of Mormon is actually true. Or Scientology is correct, or DK was right.

Evidence is just that...evidence. It's not proof. Without proof, we can't KNOW anything. Evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. Some people interpret NHM as solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and can't fathom how we can't see it.

Well, if there's a "proof" of any assertion, it is to be found in the evidence. If not there, where else?

Proof is to be found not in single bits of evidence (smoking guns are rare but can happen) but in the preponderance of evidence. And where the preponderance of evidence weighs grossly disproportionately to one side (NHM cannot overcome the mountains of evidence discounting the various Mormon truth claims), it can add up to pretty damn solid proof.

You appear to be arguing, in effect, that nothing can be proved. Even if I concede this, which I don't, we can deal in probabilities. What's the probability that Mormonism is true? Given the grossly disproportionate weight of evidence, we can, I think, confidently assert that that probability it is not true approaches 100% at the limit.

There will always be crackpots claiming this or that evidence (e.g., NHM), but why are we to be held hostage from reaching a definitive conclusion because there exist certain delusional persons who argue to the contrary? If absence of contrary argument (or the absence of any alternative "evidence," regardless of credibility) was the standard for determining "proof," then virtually nothing could ever be proven.

[_Scottie]

I disagree. Judging the veracity of LDS truth claims is possible given the extensive access we have to information about people and events surrounding its founding and early history.

Keep in mind also that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims, as well as natural claims (e.g., types of plants and animals) that can be directly tested against a mountain of knowledge about the history, plants, and animals of the relevant time period.

The PofGP claims to be a translation of an ancient text which has been indisputably proven to be something different than what the PofGP claims it to be.

More, I don't think it's arrogant of me to say I KNOW that David Koresh was not who he claimed to be, or that Scientology is a crock of crap. Likewise, it's not arrogant to day I KNOW that Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be, or that Mormonism is a crock of crap.

I can't KNOW that God does not exist, but I can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a lying douche bag.

I KNOW this, not because of any feeling I have or faith (or lack of faith), but because the EVIDENCE to this effect is overwhelming.

Well, Guy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although it appears highly, HIGHLY likely that Joseph Smith and David Koresh were frauds, and that Scientology is a crock of crap, you can not KNOW it. For every evidence that is presented, there is a barely plausible response to it. in my opinion, more often than not, they are highly unlikely, but unlikely does not equate to absolutely wrong. There is a slim chance that they have actually gotten it correct and that the Book of Mormon is actually true. Or Scientology is correct, or DK was right.

Evidence is just that...evidence. It's not proof. Without proof, we can't KNOW anything. Evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. Some people interpret NHM as solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and can't fathom how we can't see it.

Well, if there's a "proof" of any assertion, it is to be found in the evidence. If not there, where else?

Proof is to be found not in single bits of evidence (smoking guns are rare but can happen) but in the preponderance of evidence. And where the preponderance of evidence weighs grossly disproportionately to one side (NHM cannot overcome the mountains of evidence discounting the various Mormon truth claims), it can add up to pretty damn solid proof.

You appear to be arguing, in effect, that nothing can be proved. Even if I concede this, which I don't, we can deal in probabilities. What's the probability that Mormonism is true? Given the grossly disproportionate weight of evidence, we can, I think, confidently assert that that probability it is not true approaches 100% at the limit.

I totally agree with you. The probibility of the church being false approaches 100%, but it doesn't quite reach it. This is where I argue that you can not KNOW.

There will always be crackpots claiming this or that evidence (e.g., NHM), but why are we to be held hostage from reaching a definitive conclusion because there exist certain delusional persons who argue to the contrary? If absence of contrary argument (or the absence of any alternative "evidence," regardless of credibility) was the standard for determining "proof," then virtually nothing could ever be proven.

I actually do believe there are very few things that we can know. I don't go as far as "we all might be in the Matrix for all we know".

Now, that isn't to say that we should just suspend making any decisions because we don't know anything. If something is relatively close to a 100% falsehood, by all means, treat it as a falsehood. But don't say you KNOW it is false, cause you don't.

[_guy sajer]

I disagree. Judging the veracity of LDS truth claims is possible given the extensive access we have to information about people and events surrounding its founding and early history.

Keep in mind also that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims, as well as natural claims (e.g., types of plants and animals) that can be directly tested against a mountain of knowledge about the history, plants, and animals of the relevant time period.

The PofGP claims to be a translation of an ancient text which has been indisputably proven to be something different than what the PofGP claims it to be.

More, I don't think it's arrogant of me to say I KNOW that David Koresh was not who he claimed to be, or that Scientology is a crock of crap. Likewise, it's not arrogant to day I KNOW that Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be, or that Mormonism is a crock of crap.

I can't KNOW that God does not exist, but I can KNOW that Joseph Smith was a lying douche bag.

I KNOW this, not because of any feeling I have or faith (or lack of faith), but because the EVIDENCE to this effect is overwhelming.

Well, Guy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Although it appears highly, HIGHLY likely that Joseph Smith and David Koresh were frauds, and that Scientology is a crock of crap, you can not KNOW it. For every evidence that is presented, there is a barely plausible response to it. in my opinion, more often than not, they are highly unlikely, but unlikely does not equate to absolutely wrong. There is a slim chance that they have actually gotten it correct and that the Book of Mormon is actually true. Or Scientology is correct, or DK was right.

Evidence is just that...evidence. It's not proof. Without proof, we can't KNOW anything. Evidence can be interpreted differently by different people. Some people interpret NHM as solid evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and can't fathom how we can't see it.

Well, if there's a "proof" of any assertion, it is to be found in the evidence. If not there, where else?

Proof is to be found not in single bits of evidence (smoking guns are rare but can happen) but in the preponderance of evidence. And where the preponderance of evidence weighs grossly disproportionately to one side (NHM cannot overcome the mountains of evidence discounting the various Mormon truth claims), it can add up to pretty damn solid proof.

You appear to be arguing, in effect, that nothing can be proved. Even if I concede this, which I don't, we can deal in probabilities. What's the probability that Mormonism is true? Given the grossly disproportionate weight of evidence, we can, I think, confidently assert that that probability it is not true approaches 100% at the limit.

I totally agree with you. The probibility of the church being false approaches 100%, but it doesn't quite reach it. This is where I argue that you can not KNOW.

There will always be crackpots claiming this or that evidence (e.g., NHM), but why are we to be held hostage from reaching a definitive conclusion because there exist certain delusional persons who argue to the contrary? If absence of contrary argument (or the absence of any alternative "evidence," regardless of credibility) was the standard for determining "proof," then virtually nothing could ever be proven.

I actually do believe there are very few things that we can know. I don't go as far as "we all might be in the Matrix for all we know".

Now, that isn't to say that we should just suspend making any decisions because we don't know anything. If something is relatively close to a 100% falsehood, by all means, treat it as a falsehood. But don't say you KNOW it is false, cause you don't.

OK, fair enough. I am less pessimistic about the possibility of knowing anything than you are, but viva la difference.

[_Mary]

And by God, I think Dawkins defines It something like: An a priori, universal causative agent of greater complexity than the current state of the Universe. By that definition, which I think is what most formal religions believe, there is almost certainly no God. Many theists who are not formally religious, believe, like Thomas Payne, that God is the Universe or Nature. By that definition there is certainly a God, but then why do we require a separate word for the Universe or Nature?

The only creationist argument that makes the remotest sense to me is that God exists outside of the laws of this Universe and therefore cannot be postulated as complex or not. But then, this argument is simply pure faith and you can take it or leave it.

Dawkins assumes he knows the laws of the universe. I would have said 'outside the known laws of this universe'. Then I am right there with him!

Mary