Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_JAK]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

Excuse me, JAK. I haven't received my grade yet.

Jersey Girl
:-)

Now, cut that out :-)

Oh, these people who just need a reward :-)

You get A. Now don't ask for a + also.

It's often very difficult to answer briefly and really get the detail one wants to convey. But I think you have a good understanding of what it means to offer more than assertion when making claims with which others may disagree.

A corollary to the fallacy of truth by assertion is an additional and challenging concept. Since you have an A already, here is the corollary:

The more extraordinary a claim, the greater the need for evidence.

You still have the A. But let me explain by illustration.

In the Midwest, if I tell you we have mosquitoes, that’s not an extraordinary claim. Of course, I still need to provide evidence for the claim. But since misquitoes are prolific in the Midwest and since virtually everyone there has seen or been bitten by a mosquito, little evidence may be required to establish my claim. A few mosquitoes will likely suffice.

(I do not mean to be insulting but illustrative.)

Now if I claim to have a pink elephant, that is far more extraordinary as a claim. You should say “Let all of us see the pink elephant.”

If I am unable to produce evidence for my claim, my claim should be disregarded.

If I say: I know we have a pink elephant, that does not establish my claim. You would be right to disregard my claim in the absense of evidence for it.

So the corollary is nearly as important as the principle:

Evidence is required. Evidence must be submitted to skeptical analysis. That is, it must be if it is to be taken seriously and regarded as reliable.

These are principles of not only what we know but extend to how we know anything.

Muslim extremists (for example and I assume you are not a Muslim extremist) declare truth by assertion. It’s a very different “truth” than is declared by Hindus (for example) or Christians (for example).

My challenge to Nehor was that he offer evidence for particular claims stated and claims assumed in his dialogues on this forum.

I have yet to read the Hitchens book but have seen excerpts and heard him on Bookspan and in other interviews regarding his recent book.

This forum is not the place for a book or book-like writing. I apologize for being too long. But no matter how well one may wish to have articulated a thought, one can always have done it better.

JAK

[_JAK]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Nehor,

Your statement remains problematic. You make a claim. If you expect others to believe that claim, you are responsible for meeting burden of proof.

Your statement here is yet another claim about who knows.

You have claimed God. In addition, by implication and direct statement, you make further claims characterizing your God (in most of your posts).

If you would read my responses to Jersey Girl and her comments as well, it might be helpful assuming your intent is honest communication. Some person posting called you “a puppet.”

I don’t know your intent to be honest. That I respond gives you benefit of the doubt. The construction of god claims and later God claims, historically demonstrates the evolution of those claims. The Muslims who brought down the World Trade Center in New York were later identified as religious people who prayed to God.

I presume that was a different God than the one you claim.

However, you claim has no more validity than theirs. I feel quite sure you do not comprehend that. But, the Muslims present no more evidence for their God than you have presented for your God.

A claim for God is an extraordinary claim. If you claimed you have two eyes, and if I disputed that (assuming agreement on definition and meaning of “eye,” what would you do?

You would say: Look at me. What do you see in/on my face??.

Suppose further that my response was this:
I have talked to God and God tells me that you do not have two eyes. And I believe God when he (male of course) tells me that YOU do not have two eyes.

I don’t know how you would respond to that. But you might think me crazy. Or, you might tell me that my God was lying to me. You have other options.

When you claim to talk to God, you also claim God.

What’s the objective and skeptically reviewed evidence for your claims? You have presented none. Biblical scripts do not assist you. They are not reliable. They are contradictory. Further, biblical scripts are often claims absent evidence.

Your claim that you “talk to God” is not evidence that you do or that your claimed God exists. It’s an assertion. Hence, it’s truth by assertion.

I strongly recommend that you read:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

Background on Author

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Of course I need to be rewarded. I wanted confirmation that I learned what I was taught. Don't you want to know if I was paying attention in class? What I know about this is a direct reflection of your ability to instruct. I give you an A+!

I was going to mention "the least likely claim" but I chose not to. Thank you for addressing that in your post!

Jersey Girl

[_The Nehor]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Nehor,

Your statement remains problematic. You make a claim. If you expect others to believe that claim, you are responsible for meeting burden of proof.

Your statement here is yet another claim about who knows.

You have claimed God. In addition, by implication and direct statement, you make further claims characterizing your God (in most of your posts).

If you would read my responses to Jersey Girl and her comments as well, it might be helpful assuming your intent is honest communication. Some person posting called you “a puppet.”

I don’t know your intent to be honest. That I respond gives you benefit of the doubt. The construction of god claims and later God claims, historically demonstrates the evolution of those claims. The Muslims who brought down the World Trade Center in New York were later identified as religious people who prayed to God.

I presume that was a different God than the one you claim.

However, you claim has no more validity than theirs. I feel quite sure you do not comprehend that. But, the Muslims present no more evidence for their God than you have presented for your God.

A claim for God is an extraordinary claim. If you claimed you have two eyes, and if I disputed that (assuming agreement on definition and meaning of “eye,” what would you do?

You would say: Look at me. What do you see in/on my face??.

Suppose further that my response was this:
I have talked to God and God tells me that you do not have two eyes. And I believe God when he (male of course) tells me that YOU do not have two eyes.

I don’t know how you would respond to that. But you might think me crazy. Or, you might tell me that my God was lying to me. You have other options.

When you claim to talk to God, you also claim God.

What’s the objective and skeptically reviewed evidence for your claims? You have presented none. Biblical scripts do not assist you. They are not reliable. They are contradictory. Further, biblical scripts are often claims absent evidence.

Your claim that you “talk to God” is not evidence that you do or that your claimed God exists. It’s an assertion. Hence, it’s truth by assertion.

I strongly recommend that you read:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

Background on Author

JAK

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nehor

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something. Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see anything wrong in that exchange?

Just begin with that.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

A quibble. Wouldn't God talking to you be evidence for God?

How do you know it's God?

Jersey Girl

[_The Nehor]

Nehor

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something. Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see anything wrong in that exchange?

Just begin with that.

Jersey Girl

No, I see no difficulty. If I didn't know better than anyone else whether I talk to God it follows that I would be most fit to say that God told me something.

[_The Nehor]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

A quibble. Wouldn't God talking to you be evidence for God?

How do you know it's God?

Jersey Girl

It is different from mortal communication. My brain also doesn't work like that on it's own. Plus the communicator told me it was God.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nehor

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something. Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see anything wrong in that exchange?

Just begin with that.

Jersey Girl

No, I see no difficulty. If I didn't know better than anyone else whether I talk to God it follows that I would be most fit to say that God told me something.

Let us clear our brains from all clutter and concentrate on just those two statements. Consider this an intro to your current online course in which you pinpoint inconsistency in your thinking. ;-)

Okay, let's look at the two statements with bold emphasis:

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something.

Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see it now?

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Well, let’s see what you can offer in the way of evidence -- evidence open to skeptical review. Your say so hardly constitutes anything in the way of that which can be skeptically reviewed.

In fact, it is the opposite. It’s more truth by assertion.

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

Simply stated it means that you make a declaration as if it were an established fact. It’s an assertion. Particularly religious notions such as I talk to God and God talks to me. Since it’s your claim and since no one else actually hears what you claim to hear, you have nothing to present for your claims.

Religions use truth by assertion. You use it each time you make some God claim.

But, whether you're a “puppet” as harmony said of “Tommy” or a brain-washed child, the difference lacks much distinction -- “The Nehor.”

Does your God speak in English? Does your God have tonal inflection? Does your God have a bass voice?

Let's have some detail, Nehor. Otherwise, you're a fraud. And even if you make up a story here, you have no evidence for your claims. Your word is not sufficient.

JAK

Why give you detail? You already said you won't believe it.

Truth by Assertion. Seems to be your buzz-phrase. I contend that I am not asserting it and when I try to present anything you demand that it be subject to skeptical review. What is this skeptical review you want? What evidence do you want? A reproducible miracle? God's presence (which would kill you)?

Most important things in life can't be skeptically reviewed. I assume that sometime you've asserted that you love someone. Prove it. Perhaps you've asserted that something makes you happy. Prove it. With evidence for skeptical review please. If you've felt neither of these things than I feel sorry for you.

Your fallacy is that science will teach you anything at all about God. It will not.....ever. Science is concerned with what matter does in certain states. God is outside the equation. If he is to be detected it is by other means.

But if that doesn't help I will give you an experiment you can do to prove the existence of God to you skeptically and disinterestedly. Kill yourself using the method of your choice. You will find an afterlife and eventually God. Tell me how it goes.

Nehor stated:
Why give you detail? You already said you won't believe it.

You’re not reading carefully. See above that I stated this:
“Well, let’s see what you can offer in the way of evidence -- evidence open to skeptical review. Your say so hardly constitutes anything in the way of that which can be skeptically reviewed.”

Thus far, you offer no evidence but only your assertions.

Nehor stated:
Truth by Assertion. Seems to be your buzz-phrase. I contend that I am not asserting it and when I try to present anything you demand that it be subject to skeptical review.

The phrase “truth by assertion” is an analysis of the techniques used by those who fail to offer clear, visible evidence for their claims of a truth. The analysis is simply stated, direct, and to the point. Any declaration one makes or even which multiple individuals may make is subject to scrutiny by skeptics of their declaration.

The more generally evidence is available for all to see, the less extraordinary a declaration. (See my example with Jersey Girl on mosquitoes and the pink elephant.)

You have yet to present any evidence for your God claim. I have demonstrated by example that many others have different God claims from one another. Since people (individuals or groups) make different claims for God, we can conclude that the claims are not reliable.

Muslims do not make the same God claims as Christians -- for example. Further, realize that Christian groups do not agree with other Christian groups on various God claims. We can conclude that the claims are unreliable wherein they contradict one another.

“Skeptical review” involves some method for testing a claim. It involves presentation of evidence by the one making a claim. In this case, that is you. You claim God. What is the evidence for that claim? First, you have the burden of proof for the claim(s) you make regarding your assertions about God.

Your say-so is not evidence for your claim. If I claim I have pink elephants in my yard, I have the burden of proof for that claim.

You and others are in a position to make the skeptical review of my claim. You say: Show us the pink elephant in your yard. If I am unable to produce evidence for my claim that you can observe by some means of your selection, I have failed to meet my obligatory burden of proof.

If I fail in that burden of proof, my claim should be disregarded. As one doing the skeptical review, you can observe that I have failed to present any evidence for my claim.

For me to say: Well, I should know if I saw pink elephants in my yard, is inadequate evidence to support my claim. My claim should be disregarded -- dismissed.

Nehor stated:
What is this skeptical review you want? What evidence do you want? A reproducible miracle? God's presence (which would kill you)?

Above, I have described how evidence for a claim may be evaluated. “Miracle” is also a term generally used loosely to describe something a person regards as favorable or good. Many things may be so regarded. However, if one uses the term and claims God suspended natural law, that is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

When people have a near encounter with death in an accident that didn’t happen but was a very close call, they may claim “miracle.” If they were killed they claim nothing. Dead people don’t make claims. Yet, we know that tens of thousands are killed each year in traffic accidents on American roads. Whether a near miss or death, no evidence has been established that natural law has been violated in stories about traffic accidents or near accidents.

That people believe there was supernatural intervention does not establish it as fact. Evidence supports a positive, Nehor. Some attempt to shift the burden of proof and ask the skeptic to prove a negative. In fact, we use evidence to support a positive (fact).

Very unusual things occur which people regard as good. That does not constitute evidence for miracle. Very bad things happen. More than 3,400 service men & women from the US have been killed in the Iraq war. Some narrowly escaped both death and injury. Others -- some 30,000 have been injured, have lost arms, have lost legs, but are not dead. No evidence of supernatural intervention or evidence that any such thing as supernatural has been established by these or any other examples one might cite of unusual events. They are without doubt emotional events. People may make up stories in their imagination about them.

Nehor stated:
Most important things in life can't be skeptically reviewed. I assume that sometime you've asserted that you love someone. Prove it. Perhaps you've asserted that something makes you happy. Prove it. With evidence for skeptical review please. If you've felt neither of these things than I feel sorry for you.

The first sentence is a subjective judgment -- not a fact. We have clear evidences for love of someone. We can observe a multiplicity of behaviors which can be used as evidence for love. A marriage which lasts 50 years is evidence for love. But more importantly the events day-by-day, the conduct, the demonstration of concern, care, interest, support, etc. -- all these day-by-day are evidence (over 50 years) for love. While there is a difference between proof and evidence, the two are closely related. Evidence is the building material for proof. I’ll not attempt the particulars in distinction here, but could later.

The same can be applied to what makes one happy. We can observe evidence in particulars of what produces the emotion of happy feeling. Someone who is an avid golfer for many years, who displays expressions of joy at the game, who plays at every opportunity, who tells others in happy mood about a golf experience -- all that provides us with evidence that this is something which makes the person “happy.” Many other things may make the same person “happy.” We can observe (objective, skeptical observation) things that person does, says, and spends time doing.

Your appear to conclude that we cannot find evidence for the two emotional responses people have. If so, it’s a false conclusion. As I have briefly described, we can find evidence for both these emotions in individuals, if we apply the science of psychology in observation techniques, Nehor.

Nehor stated:
Your fallacy is that science will teach you anything at all about God. It will not.....ever. Science is concerned with what matter does in certain states. God is outside the equation. If he is to be detected it is by other means.

You’re making claims here for God. Science is not so limited as you might wish in your statement. Science remains open to evidence as I have previously demonstrated.

You further claim: “God is outside the equation.” It’s another claim for God which you’re making and for which you offer nothing but the claim.

You have not established your claim for God. Nor have you given us any “other means” as you claim even further absent resource.

In that, you can make up anything you wish. The statements of yours here are an attempt to evade presentation of support for your claims. It’s a return to truth by assertion. Absent evidence for a claim, the claim should be disregarded.

Preaching (as religions do) is not presenting evidence. Keep in mind that religions are contradictory. That’s because the rely on making it up as they go. The contradictions in religion are not trivial. They are catastrophic as we compare Christianity of 1066 CE with the more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults of 2007.

And this is just one religion. While there is not space here, I could offer you many websites and refer you to many Christian collages which have vastly different God claims.

This, of course, excludes Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and a number of other world religions which also RELY on truth by assertion.

And such claims are unreliable.

Nehor stated:
But if that doesn't help I will give you an experiment you can do to prove the existence of God to you skeptically and disinterestedly. Kill yourself using the method of your choice. You will find an afterlife and eventually God. Tell me how it goes.

Killing one’s self is hardly an objective experiment, Nehor. I would have thought you to be somewhat more intellectual than that.

There is no evidence for your assertion “an afterlife.” And ancient biblical stories which were told by word of mouth many times prior to notation by language, AND, multiple translations of those stories over centuries with all their contradictions and interpretations do not constitute reliable evidence. The various claims made and amending by interpretation have resulted in multiple doctrines.

The latter we can find abundant evidence to support. Mormonism is but one of hundreds and hundreds of religious interpretations.

Perhaps if you actually read my post here, you would have a different and more accurate sense of what “skeptical review” means as we apply it to a claim. You don’t demonstrate that you have a very good understanding of science or of how what we know is established.

Humans as a species evolved over time. Living organisms share that evolutionary process even as new species (of viruses for example) evolve during a relatively few years. And pesticides have produced the evolution of “pests” which have greater resistance to suppression.

JAK